Review of
   paper title:
   paper number:


1: Originality. Rate the paper based on its creativity and novelty of the approach.

	    [ ] Strong reject
	    [ ] Reject
	    [ ] Weak reject
	    [ ] Neutral
	    [ ] Weak accept
	    [ ] Accept
	    [ ] Strong accept

	
2: Correctness. Rate the paper based on its theoretical and experimental validity.

	    [ ] Strong reject
	    [ ] Reject
	    [ ] Weak reject
	    [ ] Neutral
	    [ ] Weak accept
	    [ ] Accept
	    [ ] Strong accept

	
3: Technical Merit. Rate the paper based on the depth of the ideas presented.

	    [ ] Strong reject
	    [ ] Reject
	    [ ] Weak reject
	    [ ] Neutral
	    [ ] Weak accept
	    [ ] Accept
	    [ ] Strong accept

	
4: Impact. Rate the paper based on how much you think it will influence the field of KDD.

	    [ ] Strong reject
	    [ ] Reject
	    [ ] Weak reject
	    [ ] Neutral
	    [ ] Weak accept
	    [ ] Accept
	    [ ] Strong accept

	
5: Presentation. Rate the readability of the paper and the clarity of its presentation of ideas.

	    [ ] Strong reject
	    [ ] Reject
	    [ ] Weak reject
	    [ ] Neutral
	    [ ] Weak accept
	    [ ] Accept
	    [ ] Strong accept

	
6: Overall Score. In summary, how would you rate this paper?

	    [ ] Strong reject
	    [ ] Reject
	    [ ] Weak reject
	    [ ] Neutral
	    [ ] Weak accept
	    [ ] Accept
	    [ ] Strong accept

	
7: Do you think this paper is more suitable for the industrial/government 
track of SIGKDD 2004?

	    [ ] Yes
	    [ ] No

	
8: Do you think this paper should be considered for the best paper 
award?

	    [ ] Yes
	    [ ] No

	
9: Give a short summary and rationale of your recommendations (will be seen by the author(s)):


	

	

10: Detailed comments to the authors (will be seen by the author(s)): 

	

	


Your name:

Enter comments for the Program Committee (will not be seen by author):