==============================================================
 Referee Evaluation Form for the GMU ECE 646 Project Reports
         based partially on the evaluations forms for
 - CHES: Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems Workshop
and
 - IEEE Transactions on Computers
==============================================================

Conduct of the Referee
----------------------

In order to guarantee fairness to the author(s), 
the reviewer of a paper should abide by a number of
guidelines not limited to the following:

·Respond within the allotted time.
·Provide sound, constructive reviews.
·Assume that papers submitted for publication are not meant 
 to be public.
·Do not use material from a paper you have refereed.
·Do not distribute copies of a paper you have been asked 
 to referee unless the material is already public.
·Tell the Editor (Instructor) if there are any conflicts of
 interest involved in refereeing a paper.

==============================================================
                      Confidential Data
 [The information from the following three fields will not be 
               shared with the Authors of the paper]
==============================================================

Name of the Referee:
E-Mail Address:

Confidential Comments to the Editor (Instructor):


==============================================================


==============================================================
        ECE 646 Project Report Referee Evaluation Form
       [This information will be forwarded to the Authors]
==============================================================
                          Basic Info
============================================================== 

Index of the Paper (e.g., AC-1)  :->

Title of the Paper               :->

Authors of the Paper             :->

==============================================================
                           Rating
==============================================================

Please rate the paper, using a number for each item below.
(5: Excellent, 4: Very Good, 3: Good, 2: Fair, 1: Poor)

A. Technical Soundness     :->
[Please, comment on issues such as correctness of the analysis,
quality of the solution in terms of security, performance 
and other relevant metrics]



B. Quality of Presentation 

Detailed :
     1. Are the title and abstract appropriate? Please comment.
            ___Yes
            ___No

     2. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate
        references? Please comment.
            ___References are sufficient and appropriate
            ___Important references are missing; 
               more references are needed
            ___Number of references are excessive

      3. Does the introduction state the objectives of the 
         manuscript in terms that encourage the reader to 
         read on? Please explain your answer.
            ___Yes
            ___Could be improved
            ___No

      4. How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? 
         Is it focused? Is the length appropriate for the topic? 
         Please comment.
            ___Satisfactory
            ___Could be improved
            ___Poor

      5. Please rate and comment on the clarity and readability 
         of this manuscript.
            ___Easy to read
            ___Readable - but requires some effort to understand
            ___Difficult to read and understand
            ___Unreadable

      6. Evaluate the quality and readability of figures and 
         tables included in the report.
            ___Excellent  
            ___Good          
            ___Fair
            ___Poor

      7. How would you rate the language and style of the paper?
            ___Good English
            ___Ocassional errors in style
            ___Readable - but requires some effort to understand
            ___Ocassional errors affecting the meaning of 
               sentences
            ___Incomprehensible

      8. Does the conclusion clearly summarize 
         the main results and contributions of the manuscript? 
            ___Yes
            ___Could be improved
            ___No


Overall quality of presentation    :->
            

C. Originality             :->


Justification:
[Please explain how this manuscript advances this field of
study and/or contributes something new to the literature,
and how difficult was to obtain the presented results.]


D. Significance            :->

Justification:
[Please, explain if according to you, the selected topic
is worth studying, whether the authors make any
significant contribution to the understanding of the subject,
and whether there might be any practical application 
of the obtained results]


E. Agreement of results with the original specification 
[please, refer to the original specifications posted at
http://ece.gmu.edu/courses/ECE543/project/projects2003.htm]
                           :->

Justification:



F. Overall evaluation      :->

Justification:


Recommended action for the paper (assuming that the paper 
was submitted for a conference or to a journal) :->
(5: Must accept, 4: Should accept, 3: Accept if room permits,
 2: Should reject, 1: Must reject)

Justification:


Referee's confidence in this evaluation :->
(5: High confidence ... 1: Low Confidence)

Explanation:




==============================================================
                   Strengths and Weaknesses
==============================================================

1. Strengths of the paper:


2. Weaknesses of the paper:
[including the detailed list of technical errors, ommisions,
and inaccuracies, if not listed above]



3. Suggestions for improvement (other than given above):

Technical:


Editorial:
[please, feel free to mark your editorial corrections in red
in the MS Word version of the paper, and attach it to your 
e-mail]



4. Other comments:


==============================================================