CS 553 Spring 2003 Position Paper #2 Assignment

CS 553 Spring 2003

Position papers #2 assignments

Announcements:

(4/17) An Example review is posted. Please read the introduction explaining how to review position papers.
(4/15) paper #7 posted.
(4/10) paper #10 updated.

Below are all the papers the class submitted, along with some of my commentary. Your task is to submit 2 evaluations in text or PDF formats, due by Friday 4/25.

Your paper reviews should consist of :

Classification of the paper into one of the catagories listed below.
The body of your review should explain why or why not the issues in the evaluation criteria have been addressed.
Comments to the author on how to improve the paper (this will be anonymous, or at least 50% anonymous) .

Student	Paper to Review #1	Paper to Review #2
Andrew	3	9
Chunling	2	8
Kiran	4	10
Lev	8	4
Marina	6	2
Neeraj	1	7
Nitin	5	1
Pandurang	7	3
Vishal	10	6
Zhijun	9	5

Paper Tile	Number and Link
Access Control in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing System	01
Multicast as a Viable Commercial Enterprise	02
Virtual Machines are the Right Platform for Deploying Internet Services	03
Centimeter Level Location Accuracy is unnecessary for Location-based services	04
Java is the Language of Choice for Creating Internet Services Applications for Wireless Devices	05
Application Security: the case for Open Source Software	06
Information wants to be Free!	07
Large Data Centers is the Wrong Direction for Internet Services	08
Implementing Software within the Network	09
On the Shared Memory vs. Message Passing Argument	10

Evaluation Criteria:

Is the position well defined? :

Is the issue one with genuine controversy and uncertainty?

Is the issue narrow enough to be manageable for a class paper?

Is the position quantifiable? That is, put in numerical terms, if possible?

Are the communities of people involved with the position (and their positions) identified?
Are the opposing positions articulated? Are rebuttals given to the opposing positions?
What evidence is used to support the position?

Quantitative evidence based on experimentation?

General facts about the systems in question?

Ancedotes only?

Is the paper logically organized?

Is it easy to follow the position, counter-arguments, and evidence?

Are there transistions between sections?

Is the paper easy to read?

Are a consistent writing style and tone used throughout?

Is vocabulary is correct and conforming to standard practices?

Are the grammar and spelling correct?

Is a consistent tense used throughout?

Most importantly, would a skeptic be convinced, or at least swayed, to the position in the paper? Why or why not?

Evaluation Catagories:

Excellent: The paper could be sumbitted as a "letter" --- a short position paper-- to a journal as is.
Very Good: The paper has some problems, but nothing that couldn't be fixed without a quick clean-up.
Good: The paper has some problems, there are some gaps in the overall positions, counter-positions, or supporting evidence.
Fair: The paper has more serious problems. These may include (1) ill-defined position, (2) elements of the evidence are missing, (3) counter positions are not addressesed, (4) really bad grammer, or (5) poor organization.
Poor: The position in not well explained or defined. The paper is confusing or internally inconsistent.
Atrocious: What a piece of junk! I'm surprized it was turned in at all. It was probably written the hour before the deadline.