Review Form ECAI 2004 Workshop on Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management (AMKM-2004) Paper # : ____ Title: ____________________________________ Author : _______________________________________________ Reviewer : _______________________________________________ 1 Compliance of Contribution with AMKM Topic In this section, we want to find out to what degree the contribution fits with the overall approach of the symposium. Due to the discussion-oriented character of the symposium we want to consider for exclusion only those contributions which are completely off-topic. 1.1 How much related to the Knowledge Management topic is the contribution? off-topic = 1 2 3 4 5 = excellent _ _ _ _ _ 1.2 How much related to the Agents topic is the contribution? off-topic = 1 2 3 4 5 = excellent _ _ _ _ _ 2 Quality of Contribution In general, the goal is not to exclude low-quality contributions from the symposium. Rather we want to adjust the form of publication and presentation to the level of quality and give the authors feedback for improvements. 2.1 Originality Has this or similar work been previously reported? Are the problems and approaches completely new? Is this a novel combination of familiar techniques? Does the paper discuss relevant research, or is it reinventing the wheel using new terminology? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2.2 Significance How important is the work reported? Does it attack an important/difficult problem or a peripheral/simple one? Does the approach offer an advance in the state of the art? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2.3 Maturity of Work Does the paper describe conceptual work, an implemented system, or an evaluated system? Is the paper technically sound? Does it carefully evaluate the strengths and limitations of its contri- bution? Dimensions for evaluation include generality, empirical behavior, theoretical analysis, psychological validity, and knowledge of relevant related work. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2.4 Clarity of Presentation Does the paper describe methods and tools in sufficient detail for readers to replicate the work? Does it describe inputs, outputs, and the basic algorithms employed? Is the paper well organized and well written? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2.5 Adequate Form of Publication I suggest __ NO / __ SHORT / __ LONG presentation. The central topics of the contribution are of __ HIGH / __ MEDIUM / __ LOW interest for a special interest discussion group. Inclusion in a journal special issue is __ HIGHLY / __ SOMEHOW / __ NOT AT ALL recommended. In the case of an Extended Abstract: I suggest to invite for upgrade to a full paper: __ STRONG YES / __ YES / __ WEAK NO / __ STRONG NO 3 Content Classification 3.1 The paper deals with __ AMKM theory __ a case study __ a system __ ________________. 3.2 Please assign maximal two keywords to the paper. 1. ____________________________________ 2. ____________________________________ 4 General Remarks 4.1 To the author(s) of the paper Suggestions for improvement, miscellaneous ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 4.2 To the workshop chairs ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________