Technical Papers Review Form

This form cannot be submitted as is. Instead, after it is complete, you must paste the text into the web form on the SIGGRAPH review site.

The review system uses a fixed-width font, and all text boxes support at least 80-character line widths. If you limit your lines to a maximum of 80 characters, simple formatting such as indenting, column alignment, and even ASCII drawings will be viewed correctly by the authors and the other reviewers.

Please DO NOT enter a partial review and then log off the system. Incomplete reviews are automatically discarded, so you will lose any work that has been entered.

Summary of Reviewer Ethics:

  • Don't share the paper or its materials with others.
  • Don't use or share ideas presented in the paper.
  • Be serious and thorough. Don't be casual or flippant.
  • Be respectful. Don't belittle or use sarcasm.

Summary of Reviewer Instructions:

  • Be critical, but also look for what's good. Minor flaws can be corrected.
  • Be specific. Provide references when describing prior work. Stating that "this has been done before" is not sufficient!
  • Complete and submit your review by Friday 25 July.
  • Participate in the online discussion of the paper during the week of Saturday 2 August through Friday 8 August.
  • Use the ACM and Eurographics digital libraries both to identify related work and to access materials referenced in the paper.

1. Briefly describe the paper and its contribution to computer graphics and interactive techniques. Please give your assessment of the scope and magnitude of the paper's contribution.

2. Is the exposition clear? How could it be improved?

3. Are the references adequate? List any additional references that are needed.

4. Could the work be reproduced from the information in the paper? Are all important algorithmic or system details discussed adequately? Are the limitations and drawbacks of the work clear?

5. Please rate this paper on a continuous scale from 1 to 5, where:

1 = Definitely reject. I would protest strongly if it is accepted.

2 = Probably reject. I would argue against this paper.

3 = Possibly accept, but only if others champion it.

4 = Probably accept. I would argue for this paper.

5 = Definitely accept. I would protest strongly if it's not accepted.

Rating:

6. Please rate your expertise in the subject area of the paper on a continuous scale from 1 to 3, where:

1 = Tyro

2 = Journeyman

3 = Expert

Expertise:

7. Explain your rating by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the submission. Include suggestions for improvement and publication alternatives, if appropriate. Be thorough. Your explanation will be of the highest importance for any committee discussion of the paper and will be used by the authors to improve their work. Be fair. The authors spent a lot of effort to prepare their submission, and your evaluation will be forwarded to them during the rebuttal period.

8. (optional) You may enter private comments for the papers committee here. These comments will not be sent to the paper author(s). Please do not mention any other papers that are currently in review, or the names of people associated with these papers.