AIIDE 2008 REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS

Please read these review instructions carefully before beginning to write your reviews!

One of the key functions AIIDE plays in the entertainment AI research community is to provide useful feedback to the authors who send us their work. Your insights on alternative approaches the authors could try or relevant articles they seem to have missed may be invaluable to the author. With regard to the weaker papers, please keep in mind that if you take the time to communicate clearly how authors can improve, we will all benefit when the authors return in future years with stronger work and a better presentation.

The official version of your review is the information you will enter in the form on the review web site (http://aaai.confmaster.net/pages/login.php?Conf=AIIDE). Because that web form is very terse and to avoid the possibility of losing data, we request that you prepare your review using an electronic version of the form below, and then copy your work into the official form.

AIIDE 2008 has two tracks, the Research Track and the Industry Track. Candidates for the Research Track submit full papers, but the Industry Track only requires extended abstracts. You can discriminate Research Track extended abstracts from full papers by the fact that they contain author names. The track is also indicated on the review web site. Extended abstracts are usually, though not always, shorter and less formal than full papers. For this reason, you will no doubt find that you are not able to review them in as much detail as a full paper. If you are reviewing an extended abstract, you can skip all sections of the form below, with the exception of those marked with an asterisk ("*"), which are mandatory. The "Comments to the Authors" section is mandatory for extended abstracts, but your comments can be briefer than for full papers, and following the outline in the review form is not required. 



AAAI-08 REVIEW FORM

PAPER NUMBER:

PAPER TITLE: 

I. SUMMARY DATA 
Complete the narrative sections below before assigning these values. Assign each item a number between 1 ("bad") and 10 ("excellent") inclusive.

A. Relevance*
B. Overall recommendation* (Less than 3 means "reject", 4-5 means "marginal reject", 6-7 means "marginal accept", and 8-10 means "accept") 
C. Your confidence in your recommendation*
D. Importance
E. Originality
F. Technical Quality
G. Clarity


II. NARRATIVE DATA

A. COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS* (Cut and paste into the box on the web form labeled "Reviewer’s comments to the authors".)

1. Relevance

a. In two sentences or less, what is the main result of the paper?

b. Will the topic of the paper be of interest to the expected audience of AIIDE?

c. Is the topic of the paper appropriate to the Call for Papers?


2. Importance

a. Does the paper make a significant contribution, i.e. to what extent will it have an impact on how we think about or implement entertainment AI?


3. Originality 

a. Is this result new? Why or why not?

b. Does the paper reference past work as appropriate?


4. Technical quality

a. Is the paper technically sound? 


5. Clarity

a. Is the paper clearly written and accessible to academic researchers and industrial developers?

b. Does it motivate the research, i.e. does it contain a comprehensible explanation of the importance of the work?


6. Other comments for the author(s)


B. CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Cut and paste into the box on the web form labeled "Reviewer’s comments to the PC". These comments will be visible to other members of the program committee, but will not be shared with the author.)