Papers submitted to ISCA are expected to be original, innovative works. Papers should be approximately 6000 words in length (which is about 20 pages with an 11pt font, 1.5 line spacing).
The review process consists of four steps.
You should read the paper and enter your review information. You can continue to return and edit your review information until the end of the review period, as long as you have not "finalized" it.
When you are done with your review "finalize" it using the first menu selection, labeled "Are you done with your review".
When all reviews are finished, authors will be able to read the section labeled "Comments for the author". They will then be able to respond to those comments. That is the only information that authors will see.
During program committee meeting, PC members will use all the review information and the information provided by the author to select papers for the conference.
When you review a paper, there are several things you need to tell us. This list follows the list of questions on the review form. When you change an entry on the form, you need to click the button labeled "Submit your paper review". If you leave the page without clicking that button, your review entry will not be stored.
Are you finished with this review?
Once you "finalize" this review, you can not modify it any further. Be careful with this option.
Provide a short summary of the paper
You should briefly summarize the paper, including the strongest contributions that the paper makes.
Your qualifications to review this paper
We realize that not all reviewers are equally qualified; accurately assessing your background will help the program committee understand your review.
Overall paper merit
This is the single most important decision concerning the paper - do you think it should be accepted to the conference? If you think the paper should be a short paper, you must indicate that it would be an acceptable short paper and you should leave a comment to the program committee to that effect.
Novelty of paper
This conference focuses on novel work; it's acceptable that a novel idea have slightly less stringent evaluation than an incremental improvement, so we need to know how novel the work is. If you think the paper is not novel, you should clearly state why and indicate related prior work in your comments to the author or program committee.
Was the paper technically sound?
Was the experimental method reasonable? Good benchmarks? Good assumptions?
Interest to community
Do you think the paper would engender a lot of discussion? Do you think the average attendee would attend the paper presentation?
Will the paper be important over time?
Is this a lasting paper, one that will be cited for years?
Spelling and grammar?
Is the paper readable? If there are "show stopper" issues, you should inform the program committee.
Would this be a good short paper?
Occasionally, papers present a small but elegant idea, or an incompletely evaluated novel idea. These papers may be more appropriate for a short (5-7 pages rather than 10 pages) paper. Would this paper be appropriate for that?
Detailed comments to the author
This is the single most important response you can provide to the author. One of the critical roles of a review process is to help authors understand any problems with their work so they can improve it. Please spend the time to indicate to the author and program committee why you've rated the paper the way you did.
Additional comments to the program
There may be reasons that influence your rating of the paper that would reveal your identity, or that you would only like made available to the program committee. Please elaborate if there are any such issues; these comments will be held in confidence.