I. General evaluation.
(If your answer to any question is no, please explain.)
A. Is the title appropriate?
B. Is the abstract satisfactory?
C. Are the key words well-chosen?
D. Content
1. Does the paper have enough originality, importance and interest to warrant publication in the Research Contributions section of TOG?
2. Does the paper have enough importance and interest to warrant publication in the Practice and Experience section of TOG?
3. Is the paper technically sound? (List mistakes under section III.)
4. Does the paper make adequate reference to earlier contributions?
If not, list specific references under Section III or indicate clearly where the references may be found.
E. Presentation. (Please comment on deficiencies and/or annotate paper.)
1. Is the paper well-organized?
2. Does the paper contain excess material?
3. Does the paper lack necessary material?
4. Is the presentation clear?
5. Is the English satisfactory?
6. Are more or fewer figures necessary?
II. Recommendations.
Accept as is.
Accept with minor revisions noted below.
It is important that you justify an acceptance recommendation, so that your recommendation can be balanced with possible negative recommendations from other reviewers. Please discuss your acceptance recommendations under section III.
Reconsider after major changes noted below in section III.
Reject.
Recommend publication in Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH Quarterly).
Submit to some other Journal.
III. Comments.
Elaborate on your evaluation and recommendations. Include comments on importance, originality and style. Comments are crucial to the editor's decision-making process, and are strongly encouraged whether you recommend acceptance or rejection.