|Due By (Pacific Time)
||12/03/2016 12:00 pm
For your review select one paper from the papers posted below.
1) Check the posted papers
2) Select ONE paper of your choice for the review
3) Write and submit the review - use the template below to organize your review. Be brief - the length of the review should be no more than 3 pages (single space).
1. Problem Description: Clearly state the problem addressed by the paper. Summarize the key (at most) 3 main ideas, each in 1-3 sentences.
2. Contributions: State the main contribution of the paper: for example, solving a new problem, proposing a new methodology, process model, algorithm, or presenting a new evaluation (analysis). If a new problem is being addressed, discuss why the problem is important. Is the problem still important today (provided the paper you have selected is not recent)? Will the problem be important tomorrow? If a new algorithm, solution, architecture, design, or new evaluation (analysis) is presented, discuss what the improvements over previous solutions are.
3. Analysis: Critique, analyze, elaborate on the main contribution
a) Rate the significance of the paper using the following scale: 5 (breakthrough), 4 (significant contribution), 3 (modest contribution), 2 (incremental contribution), 1 (no contribution or negative contribution). Explain your rating in a brief paragraph (2-3 sentences).
b) Rate/discuss how convincing the methodology is: for example, ask and answer questions such as: do the claims and/or conclusions follow from the experiments, case studies, or analysis? Are any assumptions and expectations realistic? Are the experiments well designed? Are there different experiments that would be more convincing? Are there other alternatives the authors should have considered? (And, of course, is the paper free of methodological errors?)
c) Discuss what (if any) the most important limitations of the approach are.
d) Discuss if your experience and/or knowledge support the ideas/methods/practices presented in the paper and if you agree with the author(s).
4. lessons learned and open questions: Lessons learned: What lessons should system practitioners and/or researchers take away from this work? What (if any) questions do this work leave open for future work?