CMSC 636 Review Form
		  (adapted from TVCG and CMSC 601 review forms)

Author's Name:
Title of Paper:

A. Content: Please explain how this manuscript advances this field of research and / or contributes 
 something new to the literature. 



B. Presentation

1. Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please explain your answer under 
IIIA. Public Comments.

__ Yes
__ No

2. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references? Please explain your 
answer under IIIA. Public Comments.

__ 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 under III. Public Comments.

__ 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 explain your answer under III. Public Comments.

__ Satisfactory
__ Could be improved
__ Poor

5. Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript. Please explain your 
answer under III. Public Comments.

__ Easy to read
__ Readable - but requires some effort to understand
__ Difficult to read and understand
__ Unreadable

Section II. Summary and Recommendation

A. Evaluation

Please rate the manuscript. Please explain your answer under III. Public Comments.

__ Award Quality
__ Excellent
__ Good
__ Fair
__ Poor

Section III. Detailed Comments

In addition to explanations for items above, questions to address include:
1. What are the strengths and weakness of the paper?

2. Does the paper state the goals of the research, and why these goals are important 
and interesting to researchers? Is the visualization problem well-motivated?

3. Are the descriptions of the new techniques given at an appropriate level of detail?  
(One standard is whether there is sufficient detail for a good graduate student in the 
field to implement the methods from the description given.) Can a reader not familiar 
with the area follow the explanations?  

4. Does the paper clearly articulate the key strengths and weaknesses of the proposed 
methods?  Are directions for future research discussed? 

5. Is the paper well written?  Is terminology and jargon clearly explained for a 
non-expert reader?  Has the author provided sufficient background on any necessary 
formalisms or methods?