A simple template for your paper reviews is provided here. This will help you to organize your review into several sections. Sample issues/questions that should be addressed in each section are listed and some examples are shown between [ ]. Each section of the review can be further structured and presented as bullets, or subsections. Reviews should be short but complete, i.e. the important points from the paper should be included in your review. You review should not be more than one page.

Reviews should be submitted online using this form.

Review Template

1) THE PROBLEM:
What are the main problems that are tackled in this paper?
Is it a system or theory paper? [e.g. new approach to do X, performance evaluation of Y, etc]

2) MOTIVATION:
Is this problem(s) important? Why, Why not? [authors always argue that the problem is important, you should judge for yourself rather than repeating what authors say]

3) NEW/KEY IDEAS, CONTRIBUTIONS:
What are the key ideas, main take-away points, of this paper? Are these ideas new?
Are these new ideas about design or evaluation methodologies?
what is fundamentally/significantly new in this paper that previous work in this area have not solved? is this contribution important?

4) EVALUATIONS:
How did the authors conduct evaluation? [Simulation, experiment, using traces]
Is the evaluation inadequate and convincing?, Is any important result missing?
Are the results presented properly?
Do the presented results support derived conclusions?

5) MAIN FINDINGS:
What are the main findings in this paper? [eg from evaluation they find that TCP behavior in certain way if ...]

6) ASSUMPTIONS, MAIN WEAKNESSES, LIMITATIONS
What key assumptions (if any) are made by authors? [e.g. network provides reservation, or users arrive in a session randomly]
Are the assumptions realistic/reasonable? [sometimes the assumptions make a solution too simple, or its applicability becomes too narrow to be useful]
what are the main weakness or drawbacks of this paper? what are the main limitation of the proposed approach? [eg evaluations are inadequate, they did not consider important scenarios, they did not answer many important questions, poor writing, proposed solution has a narrow scope, unreasonable assumptions, etc]
How/whether can the proposed approach be extended?