C230 Letter Dear XYZ, We enclose two referee reports on your paper: C230: Their reports suggest that a revised paper would be publishable. -Particular attention should be given to making the problem accessible to a broad class of readers. Your editor also has a couple of simple questions which deserve clarification in your text. 1)Is the System Matrix A of size 6N by 6N 2)How can the relative speedup not be unity for a chain of length 1? The figures show values much less than this. Please include a memo describing any changes and their relevance to the referee's comments. Thank you for your interest in publishing in Concurrency:Practice and Experience C232 Letter Dear XYZ, We enclose two referee reports on your paper: C232: There are some reservations expressed by the referees which imply revision is necessary in the paper. The editor notes the work reported in the book "Solving Problems on Concurrent Processors" actually performed by Felten and Otto. This is not referenced and appears to have a similar philosophy to the submitted paper. More generally, a much better description is needed of the "context" -- why did you choose the three selected algorithms, how does your work relate to previous activities which are rather superficially dismissed. We would be happy to review a revised paper addressing the referee and editorial comments. Please include a memo describing any changes and their relevance to the referee's comments Thank you for your interest in publishing in Concurrency:Practice and Experience C235 Letter Dear XYZ, We enclose two referee reports on your paper: C235: The referee reports have a somewhat negative tone but we are more positive and feel that we would like to publish a revised version of this paper. We feel the strong points of the paper are the novel approach to measuring the value of PPS's from a software engineering perspective. The detailed results are as the referees say unconvincing because you have but one experiment and no statistical analysis from the small sample size. Certainly it would be wonderful if you had further experiments to add but this is not a requirement. Rather be more careful in drawing deductions from this one experiment -- your goal should not be show Enterprise is superior to PVM. Instead use your experiment to focus in conclusions on how to do larger experiments which are statistically significant -- this would suggest being more quantitative in analysis of current data. Probably it would be useful pedagogically to include a short description of Enterprise and its relevance to systems such as Hence in an appendix -- most readers are familiar with PVM but not Enterprise. Please include a memo describing any changes and their relevance to the referee's comments. Thank you for your interest in publishing in Concurrency:Practice and Experience C242 Letter Dear XYZ, We enclose two referee reports on your paper: C242: Given the comments of the referees we cannot publish the paper in its current form. We would be happy to reconsider a revised paper but very significant changes would be necessary. Firstly you should explain more convincingly the novelty of the sequential algorithm. Most importantly, the section on parallelism needs to be far more significant with a deep discussion of issues and performance results. Please include a memo describing any changes and their relevance to the referee's comments. Thank you for your interest in publishing in Concurrency:Practice and Experience. C234 Referee Report This paper addresses an important topic in practical computer science. However I would suggest that it needs to be improved in some areas before publication. 1)A conventional view of parallel computing identifies two forms of parallelism --.data and task(or functional or process) parallelism. Some applications only have one form of parallelism but most large problems have both. Graphical interfaces are natural and well established as successful for task parallelism. However such interfaces are not (obviously) natural for data parallelism. The paper should at least discuss if not solve this problem. 2)The paper would be much improved with a greater "Practice and Experience" component -- it has a rather theoretical flavor for the journal. 3)Other related systems which deserve discussion are CODE(Texas), PROTO(ISSI), AVS(Commercial), Hence(Oak Ridge), Proteus(Duke) and PCN(Caltech). C234 Letter Dear XYZ, We enclose our referee's report on your paper: C234: We believe that the paper would be published if revised in accordance with the directions suggested by the referee. Please include a memo describing any changes and their relevance to the referee's comments. Thank you for your interest in publishing in Concurrency:Practice and Experience. C251 Another Referee Report This paper describes a rather uninteresting approach to parallelizing LAPACK which is as the authors admit clearly inferior to the parallel SCALAPACK already implemented. The interest of this paper reduces to a study of the parallel BLAS but I don't see this as significant enough to warrant publication. Thus I recommend rejection. C251 Letter Dear XYZ, We enclose three referee reports on your paper: C251: All three referees recommend against publication and so we regret that we are unable to publish this paper. Thank you for your interest in publishing in Concurrency:Practice and Experience. C238 Letter Dear XYZ, We enclose two referee reports on your paper: C238: We regret that we cannot publish your paper in its current form. Both referees recommend rejection because the paper focuses on issues which are rather well known -- straightforward nearest neighbor PDE's with time stepping or Jacobi Iteration together with PVM on a network. To be reconsidered, the paper should focus on the "parallel platform" which is poorly described in this paper -- it should be presented perhaps as a domain specific interface. A more interesting example should be given and the performance model presented in a more fundamental fashion. Please include a memo describing any changes and their relevance to the editorial and referee's comments. Thank you for your interest in publishing in Concurrency:Practice and Experience. .