ECML - PKDD 2001 Paper Review Form

General Review Information
Version
Reviewer
Paper Number
Title
Contact Person

1 - How do you classify this paper?
	A: Accept: Great paper, no major presentation/methodological flaws, only minor revision needed.
	B: Conditional accept: Great idea, presentation needs improvement (e.g., a proof has an error, another small experiment needs to be run, the writing is not clear). Please indicate all required changes below. By choosing this option you confirm that you are willing to check that the re-submitted paper satisfies the required changes.
	C: Marginal: Paper has some good ideas, but would need to be accepted with flaws and only small improvements. Flaws would take longer than three weeks to fix.
	D: Reject: Paper has too many flaws to be accepted this year.

2 - What is your overall expertise concerning the subject areas of this paper?
	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.

3 - At which conference would this paper suit best?
ECML	PKDD	Both ECML and PKDD

4 - Summary of the paper

5 - Comments for the Program Committee only (Not shown to the authors)

6 - Comments for the authors

7 - Points in favour or against (also sent to the authors)

8 - Co-reviewer(s) for this paper (one per line)

CyberChair Author: Richard van de Stadt (Borbala Online Conference Services) Development supported by TRESE Copyright © by University of Twente