Rapid reviews

This is a verbatim transcript of a review I got for one of my papers.

Feel free to cut and paste and use this review if you are rushed for time.

• Familiarity
  • Evaluation=Some knowledge of this area (3)
• Presentation and clarity (Rate the presentation and clarity)
  • Evaluation=Could be improved (3)
• Importance (Rate the importance of this topic to )
  • Evaluation=Worth reporting (3)
• Validation and thoroughness (Rate the papers technical correctness):
  • Evaluation=Too many loose ends (2)
• Originality and insightfulness (Rate the paper for originality):
  • Evaluation=Worth reporting (3)
• Overall (Your overall assessment of the paper):
  • Evaluation=Weak Reject (2)
• Detailed comments (Please provide detailed feedback to help the TPC to assess the paper and to help the authors improve their paper.):

This paper proposes to do XXX . The design is comprehensive and worth considering, but the evaluation in the paper falls short of expectations for a conference like XXX.

The design is quite complex, with many elements that deviate from common practice. However, the analysis and testbed experiments described in the paper isolate only a small subset of these elements and involve very limited usage scenarios. To be convincing in its claim that the benefits of outweigh its costs, the paper would need to examine in detail the impact of more of the design elements, and include more and different real-world scenarios.