Here is a typical review form used by those assessing a paper that
has been submitted for peer review.

Note that each numbered question should have a detailed explanation for
the assessment given.

You should use this form as the basis for writing a review that is in 
a more free format. I have included part 10 for completeness but it
clearly is not relevant for people doing reviews in this unit.

Title paper:

Author(s):

Reviewer:

_____________________________________________________________________________

0. Briefly summarise what this paper is about.


1. How well is the relevant PREVIOUS WORK taken into account?

[]      Taken into account well, taking account of length limits.
[]      Most taken into account, but some improvement desirable.
[]      Some taken into account, but with serious omissions.
[]      Only a small part taken into account.
[]      [Other:] 
Comments:

2. How SOUND are the techniques that were applied in the research 
described here?

  (These may be computational or formal techniques or empirical
  research methods.)
[]      Techniques look fine.
[]      No problems noticed, but I didn't check thoroughly.
[]      Minor questionable aspects.
[]      Serious flaw(s).
[]      Techniques too vaguely described to be evaluated.
[]      No techniques (in above-mentioned sense) applied.
[]      [Other:] 
Comments:

3. How WELL SUPPORTED are the conclusions that are drawn?

  (Support for conclusions can take various forms:
  performance of an implemented system; empirical evaluation,
  theoretical argument ...)
[]      Throroughly convincing support for conclusions.
[]      Largely convincing support, but could be strengthened.
[]      Unconvincing support for one or more conclusions.
[]      No clearly recognizable conclusions in the first place.
[]      [Other:]
Comments:

4. How SIGNIFICANT are this paper's contributions to this area of
research?

  (Irrelevant and unsupported conclusions don't count here.)
[]      Significant advance(s).
[]      One or more contributions of significant interest.
[]      Minor contributions to specific issues.
[]      Hardly any contribution.
[]      [Other:]
Comments:

5. How clear is the PRESENTATION in this submission?

  (Aspects of the presentation include structure, writing style,
  figures and tables, and uses of formal notations. 
[]      Quite clear throughout.
[]      In need of improvement with respect to details.
[]      Comprehensible but subject to considerable improvement.
[]      Generally confusing and time-consuming for reader.
[]      [Other:]
Comments:

6. By way of summary, what are the most important POSITIVE
ASPECTS of this submission?


7. What are the most important NEGATIVE ASPECTS of this
submission?
  (If a problem has been mentioned above, it need only be
  referred to briefly here.)


8. What FURTHER SUGGESTIONS do you have for the authors that
haven't been made above?



9. What is the level of YOUR EXPERTISE concerning the topic areas
of this submission?
(Duplicate this part of the form for each of areas involved if
applicable.)

[]      Considerable expertise in this area.
[]      Some familiarity.
[]      [Other:]
Comments:

10. Please make here any comments on this submission that for
some reason should NOT be forwarded to the author.