DARS 2016 Review Form

Overall evaluation

0: Inappropriate – this does not fit the conference or its standards.
1: Definitely reject – the work is trivial or wrong or known. I will strongly argue for rejection.
2: Reject – the paper needs substantial improvements. I will argue for rejection.
3: Weak reject – I tend to vote for rejection, but would not be upset if the paper were accepted.
4: Borderline – I am undecided, and would not be upset if the paper were accepted or rejected.
5: Weak accept – I tend to vote for acceptance, but would not be upset if the paper were rejected.
6: Accept – a good paper, making a solid contribution. I will argue for acceptance.
7: Definitely accept – very good paper, clear accept. I will strongly argue for acceptance.
8: Outstanding – a seminal paper for the ages (among top 5% of accepted conference papers in distributed autonomous robotics).


PART A: Numeric assessment. Please choose one answer, by deleting all other options.

Originality [Does this work contain new problems or approaches? Does it combine existing methods in novel ways?]
5: Excellent
4: Very Good
3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor

Technical strength [Is the paper technically sound?]
5: Major technical contribution
4: Technically sound
3: Has minor errors
2: Has major errors
1: Fundamentally incorrect

Evaluation of results [Are the claims well supported by experimental evalution or proofs?]
5: Very convincing and thorough
4: Convincing
3: Some small additional evaluation needed
2: Significant additional evaluation is needed
1: This work is lacking a necessary evaluation

Significance and relevance [Is the community likely to use the results?]
5: Highly significant
4: Significant
3: Moderately significant
2: Limited significance or relevance
1: Not relevant or significant for this community

References to prior work
5: Excellent
4: Very Good
3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor

Clarity [Is the paper well organized and clearly written?]
5: Excellent
4: Very Good
3: Good
2: Fair
1: Poor

Suited presentation form
2: Oral presentation
1: Poster

Best paper award nomination
2: yes
1: no

Best application paper award nomination
2: yes
1: no


PART B: Detailed comments to the authors, including a 1-paragraph summary of the paper and its claimed contributions, as well as useful and constructive feedback.

[minimum 1,200 characters]


Comments to the PC Chair:

Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On Twitter