Computing Writer's Workshop Homework 2 On July 12, 2000, and in each of the meetings in the following weeks, we will operate as follows. You or one of your classmates will present a draft of a paper to the workshop. You are required to present one of your drafts to the workshop for this process. See the file `schedule.txt' for the schedule. When you are reviewing papers by other authors in the workshop, each time you should fill out a conference-style referee report. You can find a standard conference form in the homework directory of the web page for the course in the file `form-conference.txt'. A version adapted for the workshop appears below. You must print your report, and make two (2) copies. At the end of the session when the paper is discussed, you will give one copy to the author, and the other to the workshop coordinator. At the meeting of the workshop to discuss the paper, we will focus on general comments about the paper. Although the form below contains a section for specific comments, do not use that section but rather mark your comments in the paper and give the marked up copy of the paper to the author. Also, the customary section on "private comments for the program committee" has been deleted, as that is not applicable to the workshop. --------------- cut here ------------------------- cut here ------------ Referee's report on < paper title > by < authors' names > * RECOMMENDATION < This should be a short overall recommendation. Your choices will be dictated conference program committee chair, but they may be something like the following (choose one and delete the others): > A: This paper should be accepted (advocate/accept). B: I am not opposed to accepting this paper, but will not be an advocate for it. C: I am not opposed rejecting this paper, but will not argue strongly against it. D: This paper should be rejected (detractor). * EXPERTISE < For a conference, you may not be reading a paper in an area in which you are an expert. Often the program committee chair will require you to list your expertise. If there's no explicit section like this, and you feel you are an outsider, then you should say that in your private comments to the program committee. One common set of choices is the following (choose one and delete the others): > X: I am an expert. Y: I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert. Z: I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider. * SUMMARY OF THE PAPER < Summarize the paper briefly in your own words. Be sure to describe the problem being solved and the main claims. However, do not put in any evaluation of how good or bad paper is here; that goes below. > * POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE PAPER < This may be brief if the paper is bad. Describe any claims you believe are justified and interesting. Give arguments to support your evaluations; these will help you remember what is good about the paper at the program committee meeting. > * NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PAPER < This may be brief if the paper is good. Describe any claims that you believe are not justified and explain your reasons. If there is some related work missing, you should cite it in enough detail so that it can be checked. (Don't just say "I think there has been some work on this subject before.") > * SPECIFIC COMMENTS < Can be marked on the paper for the workshop >