 
	    Information for Reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
The basic purpose of peer reviews   is to insure the quality of scholarly journals. Your evaluation will play a   major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication.   We trust you to be prompt, fair, respectful of the rights of the authors,   respectful of our obligations to the readership, and to evaluate the manuscript   carefully and in depth. We are very grateful for the time and effort you invest   in the review process.
                  Confidentiality
                  Please do not show it to anyone or   discuss it, except to solicit assistance with a technical point. If you feel a   colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the   manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so. Your   review and recommendation should also be considered   confidential.
                  Conflicts of   Interest
                  If you feel you might have difficulty writing an objective   review, please return the paper immediately, unreviewed. If your previous or   present connection with the author(s) or an author's institution might be   construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists,   please discuss this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in   doubt, feel free to contact the Associate Editor-in-Chief who requested your   review.
                  Comments for Authors
                  Identify the major   contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and its   suitability for publication? Please include both general and specific comments   bearing on these questions, and emphasize your most significant   points.
                  Fairness & Objectivity
                Comments directed to   the author should convince the author that 1) you have read the entire paper   carefully, 2) your criticisms are objective and correct, are not merely   differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her   paper, and 3) you are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research   reported in this paper. If you fail to win the author's respect and   appreciation, much of your effort will have been wasted.
Review Policy
Please note that the publication process for accepted articles may take an additional 2-4 months only after they have been through the review process and accepted by the Editor-in-chief. If published, two sample copies will be sent to the authors (only for domestic authors at present; overseas authors may contact with the editor to get an electronic pdf copy via email). If authors need more copies, please contact the editor in advance.
            
            
Referee Report
                      Paper Id: _______________
Referee's Name:___________________________________________
Paper Title: ______________________________________________
1. Type of paper: (Choose the appropriate choice.)
| Research results | Survey | Tutorial | Speculative | 
2. Category in which the paper best fits in: (Choose the appropriate choice.)
a.  Machine intelligence with specific emphasis   on:
                      - expert, agents, diagnostic and decision supporting   systems;
                      - data and web mining;
                      - neural   networks, fuzzy systems, rough set theory, chaos theory and evolutionary   algorithms;
                      - reasoning, knowledge extraction and knowledge   management.
                      b.  Applications of computer science in modeling.
                      c.  Visualization and multimedia.
                      d.  Data and information   systems.
                      e.  Internet and distributed computer systems.
                      f.    Semantic Web technologies.
                      g. Other (Specify   ____________________________________________ )
                    
3. Please rate the paper on the following features. (Choose the   appropriate choice.)
                      
                    
| Item | Poor | Unattractive | Acceptable | Good | Excellent | 
| Potential interest to CS community | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
| Significance of the main idea(s) | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
| Originality of the work | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
| Technical quality of the paper | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
| Awareness of related work | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
| Clarity of presentation | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
  
                      4. How confident are   you in your rating of this paper? Circle the relevant option. 
                    
| Very | Adequate | Unsure | 
5.   Comments (if any) for the Editor's use: 
                    
6.   Comments to be communicated to the author. If require please use  on a separate   sheet (the referee's identity will not be disclosed to the authors). If you have   recommended the paper for rejection then please try to explain why you did so,   in a constructive manner. 
                    
7.   Overall Evaluation for consideration as a regular paper (Please tick the   appropriate choice): 
                    
| Definite Accept | Marginal Accept | Likely Reject | Definite Reject | 
                      
 ________________________ 
                        Referee's   Signature
