#################################################################
ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review (MC2R)
                       Review Form
#################################################################

Paper Title: 

Authors: 

Reviewer name and email address: 

Date of Completion of this review: 


=================================================================
What are the contributions of the paper?
-----------------------------------------------------------------




=================================================================
What are the main strengths of the paper?
-----------------------------------------------------------------




=================================================================
What are the main weaknesses of the paper?
-----------------------------------------------------------------




=================================================================
Other comments to the authors (e.g., typos, suggestions for
clarifications or other improvements):
-----------------------------------------------------------------




=================================================================
Comments to the editors only. These comments will not be sent to the
authors. Include information that may help the editors make its final
decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Please check the appropriate box.

=================================================================
Relevance to MC2R:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] Right on target
[ ] Definitely relevant
[ ] Close enough
[ ] Not really appropriate
[ ] Totally out of scope

=================================================================
Significance of Contribution:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] Major contribution
[ ] Considerable contribution
[ ] Marginal contribution
[ ] Minor contribution
[ ] No real contribution

=================================================================
Originality/Novelty:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] Highly original work/idea
[ ] Contains an original contribution/idea
[ ] Somewhat original
[ ] Variation of a known concept
[ ] Complete lack of original ideas

=================================================================
Technical Depth/Merit:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] Very deep and thorough work, expert level
[ ] Quite deep work, appropriate for someone working in the field
[ ] Some depth, but much more should have been done (some amendable
    assumptions and/or flaws)
[ ] Standard/straightforward exercise
[ ] Superficial/trivial (unacceptable assumptions and/or technical
    mistakes)

=================================================================
Quality of Presentation:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] Very good
[ ] Basically well written
[ ] Minor revision required
[ ] Major revision required
[ ] Unacceptable

=================================================================
Based on the above scores and your answers to the questions
provide an overall score for the paper :
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ ] Strong accept
[ ] Weak accept
[ ] Weak reject
[ ] Strong reject
=================================================================