Subject:review From:Eduard Ayguade Date:Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:38:49 +0200 To:fox@csit.fsu.edu Dear Geoffrey, Attached please find the evaluation for a paper submitted to Concurrency and Computation:Practice and Experience. Sorry for the delay in sending the evaluation. I hope it is still useful. Best regards, Eduard. -- Prof. Eduard Ayguade Centre Europeu de Paral.lelisme de Barcelona (CEPBA) Dept. d'Arquitectura de Computadors, Univ. Politecnica de Catalunya Jordi Girona 1-3, Modul D6, Barcelona 08034, SPAIN Phone: +34-93-4015951 Fax: +34- 93-4017055 http://www.ac.upc.es/homes/eduard mailto:eduard@ac.upc.es ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REFEREE'S REPORT Concurrency and Computation:Practice and Experience -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A: General Information Please return to: Geoffrey C. Fox Please fill in Summary Conclusions (Sec. C) and details as appropriate in Secs. D, E and F. B: Refereeing Philosophy We encourage a broad range of readers and contributors. Please judge pers on their technical merit and separate comments on this from those on style and approach. Keep in mind the strong practical orientation that we are trying to give the journal. Note that the forms attached provide separate paper for comments that you wish only the editor to see and those that both the editor and author receive. Your identity will of course not be revealed to the author. C: Paper and Referee Metadata * Paper Number Cnnn: * Date: * Paper Title: Java for High-Performance Computing * Author(s): Lobosco et al. * Referee: J. Torres and E. Ayguade * Address: Computer Architecture Department Tecnnical University of Catalunya (UPC) cr. Jordi Girona, 1-3, Modul D6 08034 - Barcelona, Spain Referee Recommendations. Please indicate overall recommendations here, and details in following sections. 2. accepted provided changes suggested are made 3. reject It is not clear to us if the paper should be rejected or accepted with a lot of changes. D: Referee Comments (For Editor Only) Technically the paper is a survey. It is interesting because it collects a lot of references and names in a single document. So it is worth when someone wants to start working on the topic. If you think that this fits in the magazine scope, then the option is " 2. accepted provided changes suggested are made". However, the paper needs a lot of rewriting effort. E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) As a survey, there is no uniformity in how the topics are described. In some aspects the authors go to deep in details an in other aspects the topic is considered in a superficial manner. Some uniformity would help. The general descriptions at the beginning of each (supposed) chapter, are not well written. Authors should put some effort in make them more motivating and clear. Some references are not correct. For instance, the web address in reference 27 does not work. In a lot of references authors write "Accessed December 25". If this is because contents change very frequently, then it is better to put references to reports or papers instead of web sites. Some environments are not included, such as : - NinjaRMI www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mdw/proj/ninja/ninjarmi - NexusRMI www.extreme.indiana.edu/hpjava/nexusrmi In page 46, KaRMI and JavaParty belong to the same group. They are two different tools but they are used in the same framework. F: Presentation Changes The paper has been written in a hurry. It is noticeable that the authors have not done a second read of the paper. The quality of the figures is very poor, and in some cases, codes shown are not correct (for instance, in code 2, lines 8, 9 and 16, or in code 3, line 11). Authors should number chapters, sections, subsections, ... as always in papers, and specially in long long papers.