Reviewers are expected to provide good quality reviews. They have to be accurate and insightful.

Good reviews are constructive in their criticism, and not diminishing of the authors' efforts, even when they have to be negative or very negative.

The supervising will reject any sub-standard review he/she receives - e.g. too short or shallow.

Do not identify yourself or your organization within the review text. The reviewer's recommendation for acceptance or rejection should not be included in the comments to the author.

The standard scheme of review is as follows:

1. A summary of the paper's main contributions in your own words (be careful not to simply restate the Abstract or Introduction).
2. Your evaluation of how well the paper reviews Related Work. You can suggest that the authors reference specific related papers you find, especially journal papers from the last 2-3 years.
3. Your evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Be careful to offer constructive suggestions about how the authors might address each of the latter.
4. Suggestions on specific edits to fix, for example figures that are unclear or typos.
5. A short summary of your overall evaluation and recommendation.

Please provide detailed comments to the authors so as to support your recommendation. The following points are suggested for your comments:

• What is the contribution of the paper?
• Does the author explain the significance of this paper?
• Is the paper clearly written and well organized?
• Does the introduction state the purpose of the paper?
• Are the references relevant and complete? Supply missing references.
• If the paper is not technically sound, why not?
• If the paper is too long, how can it be shortened?

Please supply any information that you think will be useful to the author for a revision, for enhancing the appeal of the paper, or for convincing him/her of the weak points or mistakes.

In your critical comments to author please be specific. If you find that the results are already known, please give references to earlier papers which contain these or similar results. If you say that the reasoning is incorrect or vague, please indicate specifically where and why. If you suggest that the paper be rewritten, give specific suggestions as to which parts of the paper should be deleted, amplified or modified, and please indicate how. If the paper has a multimedia attachment (typically, a video clip), please comment on this too. Is it consistent with the paper content? Does it enhance the paper quality? If it is a video, how is the technical quality? Is it free of commercialism?

If you feel that additional material (equations, graphs, tables, etc.) needs to be included in your review, you can attach a pdf file to your review. Please, mention in your comments to the author that you have prepared a pdf file with such material, since otherwise they might miss it. Note that if you attach to the review an annotated/bookmarked version of the paper PDF, you must ensure that any identifying information is removed. The submission system does not do this for you, but a link to the procedure for anonymization is provided when you request to upload an attachment to the Comments to the Author.