GMBV 2004 Review Form

Your review will be used first to select papers for 
the GMBV workshop, then for the GMBV special issue of CVIU.
Two of the questions below concern only the special issue.

Please give numerical answers to the "numerical questions"
on the following scale:

0: unacceptable
1: doubtful
2: acceptable
3: good
4: excellent

Please also add some specific recommendations where required;
add as many lines of text as needed.
The weight given to your review will depend in part on your comments.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Paper No:
Title: 


What type of article is it?
  - investigation of a generative model
  - new algorithm
  - performance comparison or new application
  - review
  - other (please specify)
_______________________________________________________________________
ORIGINALITY AND SOUNDNESS: NUMERICAL QUESTIONS
How innovative is the paper?
How technically/theoretically sound is the paper?
Were the experiments carried out on real data?
Are the experiments sufficient to support the conclusions?

COMMENTS and recommendations on originality and technical soundness
(in particular: what is the main contribution;
what possible problems should be discussed/investigated;
what additional experiments should be done)




_______________________________________________________________________
RELEVANCE OF THE CONTRIBUTION: NUMERICAL QUESTIONS
How important is the problem addressed?
How well does the paper fit into the theme of the workshop?
Is the work based on a generative model?
Is the generative model clearly formulated?

COMMENTS and recommendations on importance of the contribution
and relevance to the workshop:




_______________________________________________________________________
CLARITY OF PRESENTATION: NUMERICAL QUESTIONS
Is the paper clearly written?
Is the paper well structured?
Is the paper of adequate length (neither too short nor too long)?
Is the abstract adequate?
Are all symbols defined?
Are the figures and captions clear?
Is prior work adequately reviewed?

COMMENTS and recommendations on clarity of presentation:




_______________________________________________________________________
Any additional work suggested or required for acceptance 
in the CVIU special issue (in addition to the recommendations above):




_______________________________________________________________________
Additional comments and recommendations (optional):




_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

The following comments will not be passed on to the authors.

Name of reviewer:

Confidence level of your review:
this is to assign relative weights to your review;
you may give either a numerical answer 
from 1 (uncertain) to 5 (very confident) or a verbal answer


General recommendation:

 - Definitely accept (excellent article, important contribution)
 - Probably (good article, some interesting novelty)
 - Possibly (there are pros and cons)
 - Doubtful (marginal contribution, premature or needing revisions)
 - Reject (no novelty, wrong, or unreadable)

Recommendation for the special issue:

 - Accept without revision
 - Accept with minor revisions
 - Major revisions necessary
 - Good for a workshop paper but not enough material for a journal paper
 - Reject

Any confidential comments