| Reviewer: | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 |
| Relevance: | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 |
| Tech. Soundness: | 7 | 8 | 8 | 4 |
| Tech. Importance: | 6 | 8 | 8 | 1 |
| Originality: | 6 | 7 | 7 | 2 |
| Presentation: | 5 | 7 | 9 | 7 |
| Overall: | 6 | 7 | 8 | 2 |
| Recommended Action: | WEAK ACCEPT | WEAK REJECT | ACCEPT | REJECT |
| Comments: | see below | see below | no comments | see below |
| Reviewer #1's Comments: |
| -It is unlikely that one would use NetSolve for ddot(). -The presentation is linear, perhaps written in the way you thought about it and perhaps not, but it is difficult to follow as written and not very well motivated either. I believe you should present an overview of the solution first, rather than continually saying something like: "...but now the problem is...". |
| Reviewer #2's Comments: |
| Excellent description of the problem and presentation of your solution. However, the lack of supporting evidence other than claiming that the method was successfully installed leads me to reject the paper. |
| Reviewer #4's Comments: |
| I felt there was simply nothing particularly novel or unique about this work. Tools to automate the process would be interesting or even a detailed discussion of what situations would be hard to automate. |