REVIEW FORM for OVERVIEW PAPERS

Date of sending this form: Date for returning this form:	Paper Number:
Paper Author: Paper Title:

In the highly fragmented world of computer science it is very often the case that professionals lose track of what is currently going on in the other areas. Overview papers covering subareas of computer science are intended to remedy this situation.

Each paper should contain a historical perspective on the developments up to date (supported by an extensive bibliography) as well as information about the state of the art in the subdiscipline. It should describe what research is currently considered the most important and which roads are considered to be the most promising. The paper must also be accessible to computer professionals who do not have detailed knowledge of the subject.

We consider the role of the referees crucial to the quality of the papers that will be published as overview papers. To help us with publishing the best possible papers that can be of real help to the computer professionals, please provide as detailed comments to the following questions as possible. All of your comments will be returned to the author while you remain anonymous.

I. Detailed Review - please, evaluate each category.

2. What is your assessment of the need for an overview paper in this area of computer science? 3. Have you seen any other overview paper covering this area? If yes, please provide the reference(s).

4. Is the paper understandable to a broader audience, not only to specialists (what background is presupposed?); if not, what needs to be rewritten?

5. Is the paper technically sound (free of technical, mathematical, logical or other faults or inconsistencies)? Please mark the necessary corrections in the text or make suggestions on separate pages.

6. Does the discussion of the historical background contain all the important facts and developments? If not, what is missing?

7. Is the description of the "state of the art" complete? If not, what is missing?

8. Is the discussion of the current research directions complete? If not, what is missing?

9. Is the bibliography complete and up-to-date? If not, what is missing?

10. Are all the figures, tables and references referred to in the text? 11. Is the writing clear? Is the English correct? Please mark the suggestions in the text or make them on separate pages.

II. General evaluation of the paper (please use additional pages if necessary).

III. Recommendation. Please check the appropriate answer.

Publish as is
Publish with minor corrections or additions as noted
Major changes and a second review are required (the corrected paper will be returned to you)
Reject

Note: The content of this page will not be returned to the author.

How confident are you of your evaluation? Please circle your answer.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
somewhat confident		confident			very confident

Do you consider yourself (please check the appropriate answer):

a specialist in the area
a competent professional in the area
a professional with some knowledge of the area
a non-specialist

Do you have any additional comments for the journal editors?

Reviewer’s name Reviewer’s signature and date

The author's right to unpublished manuscripts. The manuscript is a privileged document; the author retains the right to the unpublished work. A referee should not use the results or ideas obtained exclusively through the refereeing process in his/her research. Please send this form (and possibly a copy of the manuscript), to the appropriate editor.