Swarthmore Computer Perception Conference Review Form Fall 2009 Paper Name: Paper Authors: Reviewer ID: 1. Content Analysis: (Please Rate - Low, Medium, High) (Comment if necessary) this paper's relevance to the course? the technical depth of the paper? the novelty of the paper? 2. Presentation: (Please Rate - Disagree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Agree) (Comment if necessary) The overall organization of the paper is satisfactory: The title and abstract are appropriate: The bibliography is appropriate: The length of the paper appropriate: The symbols, terms, and concepts are adequately defined. 3. Recommendation for publication: Final recommendation (Select one): 1. Reject 2. Reject but encourage major rewrite, 3. Review again after rewrite 4. Publish after minor rewrite 5. Publish Unaltered How confident are you about your recommendation (Select one): 1. Not confident 2. Somewhat confident 3. Mostly Confident 4. Very Confident 4. Detail Comments: Please provide constructive comments for the authors. Please provide a concise summary, list strengths and weaknesses, and describe suggestions for improvements. Please list any typographical or grammatical error found in the paper. Please provide CONFIDENTIAL comment to the editors (i.e., Prof. Turnbull). These comments will NOT be share with the authors.