

Reno, Nevada USA February 19 - 23, 2003

home	contact us	authors	reviewers	attendees	technical program

Reviewer Report Form for Panel Proposals

Due Date: Friday, October 4

Note to the Reviewer: All the information in this form will eventually be sent to the proposer of the panel with the exception of the reviewer name and the private comments to the Program Committee. These two confidential items are written in red and have the symbol # preceding them.

Additionally, all reviews submitted for a panel proposal will be distributed to all reviewers of that panel proposal. It is hoped that, over time, this feedback will help reviewers improve their reviews as they can compare their responses to those of others.

The on-line reviewing of panels with this form requires version 3.0 or higher of Netscape or Internet Explorer. The form also uses Javascript for error checking.

Panel Number:

Title:

# Reviewer Number (Sent to Each Reviewer):

Reviewer's familiarity with topic of panel proposal: Low Medium High

Focus: In your opinion, at what area(s) is the panel directed? Indicate all that apply.


Course Related
Algorithms	Architecture	Artificial Intelligence
Classroom Management	CS 1&2	Database Systems
Distributed/Parallel Computing	Formal Methods/Theory	Graphics/Visualization
Human-Computer Interaction	Networks/Data Communications	Operating Systems
Programming Languages/Paradigms	Software Engineering	Supporting Courses/Internships

General Topics
Advanced Placement / International Baccalaureate Courses and Curricula	Communication Skills	Courseware
Curricular Issues	CS Ed Research	Distance Learning
Ethical/Societal Issues	Gender and Diversity Issues	Information Systems
Information Technology	Lab Environments	Multimedia
Non-majors	Non-traditional Students	Object-Oriented Issues
Pedagogy	Undergraduate Research/Capstones	Web-based Techniques
Other

Rate the overal quality of the panel proposal according to following scale:

6 Exceptional	Top 5%	Likely to be among top 10 sessions at conference
5 Outstanding	Next 15%	Above average for symposium sessions
4 Very Good	Next 20%	Comparable to many symposium sessions
3 Average	Middle 20%	Average symposium session
2 Below Average	Lower 30%	Correct but not too interesting
1 Deficient	Bottom 10%	Contains serious errors or deficiencies

While the proposals sent to an individual reviewer may be of much higher or lower quality than the norm, the above percentiles may give some guidance about how the ratings are to be used. For example, on average, if you are reviewing 4 proposals, you might expect 1-2 proposals in the top 2 categories, 1-2 in the middle categories and 1-2 in the bottom 2 categories. Only a fraction of the proposals submitted can be accepted, due to time limitations at the Symposium.

Overall Recommendation:

6 Exceptional

5 Outstanding

4 Very Good

3 Average

2 Below Average

1 Deficient

Comments (please be constructive and as specific as possible):

Suggestions for the panelists if this proposal is accepted:

# Write your confidential comments for the Program Committee.
These will NOT be sent to the organizer of the panel or panelists.

This document is available on the World Wide Web as

http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~sigcse/2003/panelReviewForm.shtml

created May 28, 2002 last revised June 26, 2002

For more information, please contact Henry M. Walker at sigcse@cs.grinnell.edu.