GENERAL GUIDELINES for Workshop Paper Review (borrowed from ICML-95) ======================================================================= You might initially skim the paper and abstract and fill out the review form temporarily and include a list of unanswered questions. Then read the paper carefully to see if your first impressions were clear and try to look for answers. This technique might save you loads of time. The Golden Rule applies to reviews too: think about what sort of review you'd like to receive for your own papers. Here are some specific Golden Rule guidelines: -Always cite specific sources when comparing to previous work. Also briefly describe how the previous work is related. -Offer only constructive criticism; your suggestions for improving the paper will make the proceedings better. Nearly every paper can be improved somehow--try to find those ways. -Carefully try to understand what the paper is really about--we've included a line for that in the review form. By "really" we mean what's left after you've cut away the rhetoric, the particular application, and the terms used. This line in the review will show the author that you really do understand what the paper is about. -Be careful not to identify yourself in any way (e.g. citing too many of your own papers as related work). Misspelling your own name is no longer an effective disguise. -Be precise and specific whenever possible; avoid vague overly-general terms. Back up your comments with references to specific sections in the paper. If you claim that the paper is in error, try to provide a short argument or counterexample.