[Coral_current] reviewing for EMNLP
Tim Oates
oates at cs.umbc.edu
Mon Jul 18 09:36:42 EDT 2022
I've got two papers to review for EMNLP. They are attached, along with
text versions of the review forms. Does anyone want to help with these?
Also, don't forget that the original batch of reviews are due soon.
- tim
---------------------------------------
Tim Oates, Professor
Department of CS and EE
University of Maryland Baltimore County
(410) 455-3082
https://coral-lab.umbc.edu/oates/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2039_file_Paper.pdf
Type: desc="adobe/x-unknown
Size: 309630 bytes
Desc:
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/coral_current/attachments/20220718/8ec84e81/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 149_file_Paper.pdf
Type: desc="adobe/x-unknown
Size: 593678 bytes
Desc:
URL: <https://lists.cs.umbc.edu/pipermail/coral_current/attachments/20220718/8ec84e81/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
========================================================================
Plaintext Review Forms - Instructions
========================================================================
Please complete your review using the following guidelines for the
scored categories.
Reproducibility
---------------
How do you rate the paper's reproducibility? Will members of the ACL community be able to reproduce or verify the results in this paper?
5 = Could easily reproduce the results.
4 = Could mostly reproduce the results, but there may be some variation because of sample variance or minor variations in their interpretation of the protocol or method.
3 = Could reproduce the results with some difficulty. The settings of parameters are underspecified or subjectively determined; the training/evaluation data are not widely available.
2 = Would be hard pressed to reproduce the results. The contribution depends on data that are simply not available outside the author's institution or consortium; not enough details are provided.
1 = Could not reproduce the results here no matter how hard they tried.
N/A = Doesn't apply, since the paper does not include empirical results.
Reproducibility checklist feedback
----------------------------------
Are the authors' answers to the Reproducibility Checklist useful for evaluating the submission? Note that this question is for us to collect feedback regarding the usefulness of the reproducibility checklist, and is not about evaluating the paper.
Ethical Concerns
----------------
Independent of your judgement of the quality of the work, please consider any ethical implications. Please review the relevant Ethics review questions and the Ethics FAQ, as needed. Should this paper be sent for an in-depth ethics review?
Anonymity Identity
------------------
Do you know the identity of some authors of this paper?
5 = Yes, I have seen a non-anonymized version of the paper (including the case where only the title and authors are posted), posted online by authors or others after May 24, 2022.
4 = Yes. I have seen a non-anonymized version of the paper, posted online on or before May 24, 2022.
3 = Yes. I know the authors' identities via other means (e.g., being a senior area chair of a conference to which the paper was submitted)
2 = Not sure but I have a good guess. While I have not seen a non-anonymized version of the paper online, I have a pretty guess of the authors based on the paper content.
1 = No. I don't know who the authors are.
Notice that only option 5 may be in violation of the anonymity policy. The reviewer should provide a detailed review regardless of the answer to this question.
Overall Recommendation - Long Paper
-----------------------------------
Should this paper be accepted to EMNLP 2022?
In making your overall recommendation, please take into account your reasons to accept and reject the paper, as well as the paper's appropriateness for the conference. Acceptable long paper submissions must describe substantial, original, and completed work on EMPIRICAL NLP (e.g., model design and implementation, corpus construction/annotation, evaluation methodologies).
Please adhere to the score definitions below when scoring papers.
5 = TRANSFORMATIVE: This paper is likely to change our field. It should be considered for a best paper award.
4.5 = EXCITING: It changed my thinking on this topic. I would fight for it to be accepted.
4 = STRONG: I learned a lot from it. I would like to see it accepted.
3.5 = LEANING POSITIVE: It can be accepted more or less in its current form. However, the work it describes is not particularly exciting and/or inspiring, so it will not be a big loss if people don't see it in this conference.
3 = AMBIVALENT: It has merits (e.g., it reports state-of-the-art results, the idea is nice), but there are key weaknesses (e.g., I didn't learn much from it, evaluation is not convincing, it describes incremental work). I believe it can significantly benefit from another round of revision, but I won't object to accepting it if my co-reviewers are willing to champion it.
2.5 = LEANING NEGATIVE: I am leaning towards rejection, but I can be persuaded if my co-reviewers think otherwise.
2 = MEDIOCRE: I would rather not see it in the conference.
1.5 = WEAK: I am pretty confident that it should be rejected.
1 = POOR: I would fight to have it rejected.
Overall Recommendation - Short Paper
------------------------------------
Should this paper be accepted to EMNLP 2022?
In making your overall recommendation, please take into account your reasons to accept and reject the paper, as well as the paper's appropriateness for the conference. Acceptable short submissions include: small, focused contributions; works in progress; negative results and opinion pieces; and interesting application notes.
Please adhere to the score definitions below when scoring papers.
5 = TRANSFORMATIVE: This paper is likely to change our field. It should be considered for a best paper award.
4.5 = EXCITING: It changed my thinking on this topic. I would fight for it to be accepted.
4 = STRONG: I learned a lot from it. I would like to see it accepted.
3.5 = LEANING POSITIVE: It can be accepted more or less in its current form. However, the work it describes is not particularly exciting and/or inspiring, so it will not be a big loss if people don't see it in this conference.
3 = AMBIVALENT: It has merits (e.g., it reports state-of-the-art results, the idea is nice), but there are key weaknesses (e.g., I didn't learn much from it, evaluation is not convincing, it describes incremental work). I believe it can significantly benefit from another round of revision, but I won't object to accepting it if my co-reviewers are willing to champion it.
2.5 = LEANING NEGATIVE: I am leaning towards rejection, but I can be persuaded if my co-reviewers think otherwise.
2 = MEDIOCRE: I would rather not see it in the conference.
1.5 = WEAK: I am pretty confident that it should be rejected.
1 = POOR: I would fight to have it rejected.
Reviewer Confidence
-------------------
How confident are you in your assessment of this paper?
5 = Positive that my evaluation is correct. I read the paper very carefully and I am very familiar with related work.
4 = Quite sure. I tried to check the important points carefully. It's unlikely, though conceivable, that I missed something that should affect my ratings.
3 = Pretty sure, but there's a chance I missed something. Although I have a good feel for this area in general, I did not carefully check the paper's details, e.g., the math, experimental design, or novelty.
2 = Willing to defend my evaluation, but it is fairly likely that I missed some details, didn't understand some central points, or can't be sure about the novelty of the work.
1 = Not my area, or paper was hard for me to understand. My evaluation is just an educated guess.
Recommendation for Best Paper Award
-----------------------------------
Do you think this paper should be considered for a Best Paper Award? There will be separate Best Paper Awards for long and for short papers. In addition, we will have several Outstanding Paper Awards.
Author Response
---------------
Have you read the author response?
4 = N/A: this is before the rebuttal period.
3 = N/A: the authors did not provide response during the rebuttal period.
2 = Yes: I have read the response.
1 = No: I have not read the response.
Review Update
-------------
After reading the author response and having discussions with other reviewers, have you changed your overall recommendation score?
5 = N/A: this is before the rebuttal period.
4 = N/A, as the authors did not provide response during the rebuttal period.
3 = Yes, the new score is higher than the original score.
2 = Yes, the new score is lower than the original score.
1 = No, I keep the score unchanged.
Recommendation for Media Dissemination
--------------------------------------
We plan to invite some authors to write lay summaries of their work and share those summaries to journalists. Do you think the paper might have particular public interest?
FORMATTING GUIDELINES
---------------------
Enter only plain text on these forms. Your text should be formatted
in UFT-8 only.
Paragraphs should be separated by two linefeeds (like the text in
these instructions).
Remember that your textual comments will also be presented in HTML
form. START will attempt to preserve the "flow" of your original
ASCII content in HTML (e.g., to preserve itemized lists, enumeration,
etc.). But the narrative sections will be filled, i.e., the content
will be resized to fit the browser window.
That said, you may want to include multi-line formulas, tables, or
matrices in your review - where the alignment and spacing of the data
needs to be preserved as entered, even when rendered in HTML. To
accomplish this, you can include "<pre>" contexts in your textual
comments, in which case the enclosed data will be displayed as it was
entered. For example:
<pre>
7 5 11
0 0 1
1 0 1
</pre>
If you do use this feature, do not forget the closing "</pre>" tag,
at the end of the pre-formatted text. And in general, only use
<pre>-style formatting when it's absolutely necessary to do so.
[This line is to force your editor to use UTF-8 encodings:öäşεÏγασίαбоá]
========================================================================
Review Form - Submission #149
=======================================DZE3CTX9=149=====================
Title: Fast-R2D2: A Pretrained Recursive Neural Network based on Pruned CKY for Grammar Induction and Text Representation
Submission Type: Regular Long Paper
Subject Area: Unsupervised and Weakly-Supervised Methods in NLP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECONDARY REVIEWER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you used a secondary reviewer to help with this review, and you wish
to give credit to this person, enter his/her name after the colon (:) sign
below. If no secondary reviewer was used, leave the field blank.
Secondary Reviewer:
=7XD3914=SecondaryRev===========
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the detailed explanation of the form before entering your review.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In-Depth Review
The answers to the following questions are mandatory, and will be shared with both the committee and the authors.
What is this paper about, what contributions does it make, and what are the main strengths and weaknesses?
Please describe what problem or question this paper addresses, and the main contributions that it makes towards a solution or answer. Please also include the main STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of this paper and the work it describes.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_WhatIsThisPaperAbout=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_WhatIsThisPaperAbout=====
Reasons to accept
What would be the main benefits to the NLP community if this paper were to be presented at the conference?
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_AcceptReasons=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_AcceptReasons=====
Reasons to reject
What would be the main risks of having this paper presented at the conference (other than lack of space to present better papers)?
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_RejectReasons=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_RejectReasons=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Questions and Additional Feedback for the Author(s)
The answers to the following questions are optional. They will be shared with both the committee and the authors, but are primarily for the authors.
Questions for the Author(s)
Please write any questions you have for the author(s) that you would like answers for in the author response, particularly those that are relevant for your overall recommendation.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_QuestionsForAuthors=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_QuestionsForAuthors=====
Missing References
Please list any references that should be included in the bibliography or need to be discussed in more depth.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_MissingReferences=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_MissingReferences=====
Typos, Grammar, Style, and Presentation Improvements
Please list any typographical or grammatical errors, as well as any stylistic issues that should be improved. In addition, if there is anything in the paper that you found difficult to follow, please suggest how it could be better organized, motivated, or explained.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_TyposGrammarStyle=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_TyposGrammarStyle=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reproducibility, Ethics Review, Anonymity Requirement and Overall Recommendation
The answers to the following questions, except for the overall recommendation, will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
Reproducibility
====================================================================
Reproducibility
=============================9YEDC25=S=Reproducibility==============
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=X=5 [ ]: N/A
=7XD3914=S=Reproducibility
====================================================================
Reproducibility checklist feedback
=============================9YEDC25=S=Reproducibility_checklist_feedback
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: very useful
=X=1 [ ]: somewhat useful
=X=2 [ ]: not useful
=7XD3914=S=Reproducibility_checklist_feedback
Ethics Review
====================================================================
Ethical Concerns
=============================9YEDC25=S=Ethical_Concerns=============
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: No
=X=1 [ ]: Yes
=7XD3914=S=Ethical_Concerns
Ethics Justification
We have a small ethics committee that can specially review very challenging papers when it comes to ethical issues. If this seems to be such a paper, then please explain why here, and we will try to ensure that it receives a separate review.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_EthicsJustification=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_EthicsJustification=====
Anonymity Requirement
====================================================================
Anonymity Identity
=============================9YEDC25=S=Anonymity_Identity===========
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Anonymity_Identity
Author Identity Justification
If you choose 3, 4, or 5 for the Author Identify question, please provide more details (e.g., the URL of the version posted online).
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_AuthorIdentityJustification=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_AuthorIdentityJustification=====
Overall Recommendation
====================================================================
Overall Recommendation - Long Paper
=============================9YEDC25=S=Overall_Recommendation___Long_Paper
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4.5
=X=2 [ ]: 4
=X=3 [ ]: 3.5
=X=4 [ ]: 3
=X=5 [ ]: 2.5
=X=6 [ ]: 2
=X=7 [ ]: 1.5
=X=8 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Overall_Recommendation___Long_Paper
====================================================================
Overall Recommendation - Short Paper
=============================9YEDC25=S=Overall_Recommendation___Short_Paper
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4.5
=X=2 [ ]: 4
=X=3 [ ]: 3.5
=X=4 [ ]: 3
=X=5 [ ]: 2.5
=X=6 [ ]: 2
=X=7 [ ]: 1.5
=X=8 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Overall_Recommendation___Short_Paper
Reviewer Confidence
====================================================================
Reviewer Confidence
=============================9YEDC25=S=Reviewer_Confidence==========
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Reviewer_Confidence
Recommendations for Awards
====================================================================
Recommendation for Best Paper Award
=============================9YEDC25=S=Recommendation_for_Best_Paper_Award
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: Yes
=X=1 [ ]: No
=7XD3914=S=Recommendation_for_Best_Paper_Award
Justification for Award Recommendations
Please describe briefly why you think this paper should receive an award. Your comments will not be shared with the authors. However, if the paper receives an award, it is possible that some of your comments may be made public (but remain anonymous) in the award citation.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_JustificationForBestPaperRecommendation=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_JustificationForBestPaperRecommendation=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Changes after the Rebuttal Period
The answers to the following questions will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
====================================================================
Author Response
=============================9YEDC25=S=Author_Response==============
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 4
=X=1 [ ]: 3
=X=2 [ ]: 2
=X=3 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Author_Response
====================================================================
Review Update
=============================9YEDC25=S=Review_Update================
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Review_Update
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Suitability for Media Dissemination
The answers to the following questions will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
====================================================================
Recommendation for Media Dissemination
=============================9YEDC25=S=Recommendation_for_Media_Dissemination
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: Yes
=X=1 [ ]: No
=7XD3914=S=Recommendation_for_Media_Dissemination
Public Interest Justification
If yes, please describe your reason briefly.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_PublicInterest=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_PublicInterest=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Confidential Information
The answers to the following questions will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
Confidential Comments to the Area Chair and Peer Reviewers
Enter any information that you want to share with the area chair and other reviewers assigned to this paper. For instance, a very strong (negative) opinion on the paper, which might offend the authors in some way, or something that would expose your identity to the authors.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_ConfidentialComments=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_ConfidentialComments=====
Confidential Comments to Senior Area Chairs and PC Chairs
Is there anything you want to say to the Senior Area Chairs and PCs only? For example, anything that you don't want other reviewers and the area chair to see?
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_ConfidentialToSAC=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_ConfidentialToSAC=====
========================================================================
End Review Form - Submission #149
=======================================CX39VB8D=149=====================
========================================================================
Review Form - Submission #2039
=======================================DZE3CTX9=2039====================
Title: Explicit Knowledge Transfer for Weakly-Supervised Code Generation
Submission Type: Regular Short Paper
Subject Area: Unsupervised and Weakly-Supervised Methods in NLP
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECONDARY REVIEWER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you used a secondary reviewer to help with this review, and you wish
to give credit to this person, enter his/her name after the colon (:) sign
below. If no secondary reviewer was used, leave the field blank.
Secondary Reviewer:
=7XD3914=SecondaryRev===========
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the detailed explanation of the form before entering your review.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In-Depth Review
The answers to the following questions are mandatory, and will be shared with both the committee and the authors.
What is this paper about, what contributions does it make, and what are the main strengths and weaknesses?
Please describe what problem or question this paper addresses, and the main contributions that it makes towards a solution or answer. Please also include the main STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of this paper and the work it describes.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_WhatIsThisPaperAbout=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_WhatIsThisPaperAbout=====
Reasons to accept
What would be the main benefits to the NLP community if this paper were to be presented at the conference?
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_AcceptReasons=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_AcceptReasons=====
Reasons to reject
What would be the main risks of having this paper presented at the conference (other than lack of space to present better papers)?
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_RejectReasons=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_RejectReasons=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Questions and Additional Feedback for the Author(s)
The answers to the following questions are optional. They will be shared with both the committee and the authors, but are primarily for the authors.
Questions for the Author(s)
Please write any questions you have for the author(s) that you would like answers for in the author response, particularly those that are relevant for your overall recommendation.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_QuestionsForAuthors=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_QuestionsForAuthors=====
Missing References
Please list any references that should be included in the bibliography or need to be discussed in more depth.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_MissingReferences=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_MissingReferences=====
Typos, Grammar, Style, and Presentation Improvements
Please list any typographical or grammatical errors, as well as any stylistic issues that should be improved. In addition, if there is anything in the paper that you found difficult to follow, please suggest how it could be better organized, motivated, or explained.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_TyposGrammarStyle=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_TyposGrammarStyle=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reproducibility, Ethics Review, Anonymity Requirement and Overall Recommendation
The answers to the following questions, except for the overall recommendation, will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
Reproducibility
====================================================================
Reproducibility
=============================9YEDC25=S=Reproducibility==============
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=X=5 [ ]: N/A
=7XD3914=S=Reproducibility
====================================================================
Reproducibility checklist feedback
=============================9YEDC25=S=Reproducibility_checklist_feedback
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: very useful
=X=1 [ ]: somewhat useful
=X=2 [ ]: not useful
=7XD3914=S=Reproducibility_checklist_feedback
Ethics Review
====================================================================
Ethical Concerns
=============================9YEDC25=S=Ethical_Concerns=============
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: No
=X=1 [ ]: Yes
=7XD3914=S=Ethical_Concerns
Ethics Justification
We have a small ethics committee that can specially review very challenging papers when it comes to ethical issues. If this seems to be such a paper, then please explain why here, and we will try to ensure that it receives a separate review.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_EthicsJustification=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_EthicsJustification=====
Anonymity Requirement
====================================================================
Anonymity Identity
=============================9YEDC25=S=Anonymity_Identity===========
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Anonymity_Identity
Author Identity Justification
If you choose 3, 4, or 5 for the Author Identify question, please provide more details (e.g., the URL of the version posted online).
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_AuthorIdentityJustification=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_AuthorIdentityJustification=====
Overall Recommendation
====================================================================
Overall Recommendation - Long Paper
=============================9YEDC25=S=Overall_Recommendation___Long_Paper
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4.5
=X=2 [ ]: 4
=X=3 [ ]: 3.5
=X=4 [ ]: 3
=X=5 [ ]: 2.5
=X=6 [ ]: 2
=X=7 [ ]: 1.5
=X=8 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Overall_Recommendation___Long_Paper
====================================================================
Overall Recommendation - Short Paper
=============================9YEDC25=S=Overall_Recommendation___Short_Paper
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4.5
=X=2 [ ]: 4
=X=3 [ ]: 3.5
=X=4 [ ]: 3
=X=5 [ ]: 2.5
=X=6 [ ]: 2
=X=7 [ ]: 1.5
=X=8 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Overall_Recommendation___Short_Paper
Reviewer Confidence
====================================================================
Reviewer Confidence
=============================9YEDC25=S=Reviewer_Confidence==========
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Reviewer_Confidence
Recommendations for Awards
====================================================================
Recommendation for Best Paper Award
=============================9YEDC25=S=Recommendation_for_Best_Paper_Award
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: Yes
=X=1 [ ]: No
=7XD3914=S=Recommendation_for_Best_Paper_Award
Justification for Award Recommendations
Please describe briefly why you think this paper should receive an award. Your comments will not be shared with the authors. However, if the paper receives an award, it is possible that some of your comments may be made public (but remain anonymous) in the award citation.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_JustificationForBestPaperRecommendation=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_JustificationForBestPaperRecommendation=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Changes after the Rebuttal Period
The answers to the following questions will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
====================================================================
Author Response
=============================9YEDC25=S=Author_Response==============
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 4
=X=1 [ ]: 3
=X=2 [ ]: 2
=X=3 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Author_Response
====================================================================
Review Update
=============================9YEDC25=S=Review_Update================
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: 5
=X=1 [ ]: 4
=X=2 [ ]: 3
=X=3 [ ]: 2
=X=4 [ ]: 1
=7XD3914=S=Review_Update
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Suitability for Media Dissemination
The answers to the following questions will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
====================================================================
Recommendation for Media Dissemination
=============================9YEDC25=S=Recommendation_for_Media_Dissemination
Place an 'x' mark in the box next to your selection for this category.
=X=0 [x]: Yes
=X=1 [ ]: No
=7XD3914=S=Recommendation_for_Media_Dissemination
Public Interest Justification
If yes, please describe your reason briefly.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_PublicInterest=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_PublicInterest=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Confidential Information
The answers to the following questions will be shared with the committee only, not the authors.
Confidential Comments to the Area Chair and Peer Reviewers
Enter any information that you want to share with the area chair and other reviewers assigned to this paper. For instance, a very strong (negative) opinion on the paper, which might offend the authors in some way, or something that would expose your identity to the authors.
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_ConfidentialComments=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_ConfidentialComments=====
Confidential Comments to Senior Area Chairs and PC Chairs
Is there anything you want to say to the Senior Area Chairs and PCs only? For example, anything that you don't want other reviewers and the area chair to see?
=Start==============================================9YEDC25=field_ConfidentialToSAC=====
=End================================================7XD3914=field_ConfidentialToSAC=====
========================================================================
End Review Form - Submission #2039
=======================================CX39VB8D=2039====================
More information about the Coral_current
mailing list