Paper Number _________
REVIEWER INFORMATION
1
____
____
Reviewer's Interest in Topic
Reviewer's Expertise in Topic
2
____
____
3
____
____
4
____
____
5
____
____
Reviewer Information Criteria
5
4
3
2
1
Very knowledgeable about topic.
Above average understanding of topic.
Average understanding of topic.
Knows a little about topic.
Knows very little about topic
PAPER REVIEW
A. Content Evaluation of the Paper
Appropriateness for CCSC-NW
Timeliness/Currency
1
____
____
2
____
____
3
____
____
4
____
____
5
____
____
Supportive Evidence
Technical Quality and Accuracy
Scope of Coverage
Citation of previous Work
Originality/Contribution to Field
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
1
____
____
____
2
____
____
____
3
____
____
____
4
____
____
____
5
____
____
____
1
____
____
2
____
____
3
____
____
4
____
____
5
____
____
B. Written Document
Organization of Paper
Clarity of the Message
English Grammar, Spelling, Usage
C. Potential for Presentation
Suitability for Oral Presentation
Generation of Interest & Discussion
Paper Review Criteria
5
4
3
2
1
Excellent
Good
Average
Fair
Poor
Top 10%
Next 20%
Next 30%
Lower 30%
Bottom 10%
Likely to be among top 3 papers at conference
Above average for CCSC papers
Comparable to many CCSC papers
Correct but not overly interesting
Contains serious errors or deficiencies
Paper Number _____
COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS
1. What is your overall opinion of this paper?
2. Comment on the technical accuracy of the paper, pointing out areas of possible
improvement.
3. Comment on the writing style and format of the paper, pointing out areas for possible
improvement.
4. Comment on the appropriateness of this paper for the CCSC-NW audience.
5. What suggestion would you have for the author in planning an oral presentation of
this paper at the Symposium?
Paper Number
Confidential Comments for the CCSC-NW Program Committee