C370 Editor's Letter
Dear XYZ,
	We are pleased to include three referee reports on
C370:
Two referees are openly positive and give some suggestions for improving the 
presentation. The other claims to be negative but the remarks can be interpreted (in our 
opinion) as asking for discussions of possible future work as well as again the usual 
presentation comments. Thus we believe that you can relatively easily revise the paper so 
that it can be published without further refereeing. We look forward to your resubmission 
and ask that you please include a memo describing your response to the referees.
We thank you for your interest in Concurrency:Practice and Experience.

C359 Referee Report
	This paper is somewhat mixed in quality and I cannot recommend publication in 
its current form.
	The Alex machine is not well known and it is interesting to see it studied. 
However its technology is obsolete and I don't see what I learn from it. Similarly Trollius 
has been non-competitive as an operating system for any years. These remarks make me 
wonder whether the terrible results in figure 1 are due to these (irrelevant) hardware and 
software deficiencies. This poor performance has to be addressed more seriously as it 
suggests that the parallel algorithm has no interest. 
	Thus clarification and expansion is needed to address modern architectures, 
algorithmic quality and explain impact of obsolete hardware and software.

C359 Editor's Letters
	Dear XYZ,
	We enclose 3 referee reports on your paper:
C359:
	The reports are not entirely consistent but they agree substantial revision is 
required before publication. We would be happy to consider a revised paper, which 
should be accompanied by a memo describing your response to the referees.
We thank you for your interest in Concurrency:Practice and Experience.

C364/366 (You seem confused - this is Oxford Lecomber paper)
This is an interesting paper with a thoughtful set of applications used to test an important 
programming model.
	However most U.S. readers will find the paper difficult to understand as it uses a 
rather parochial "European" notation. It is fine to use the BSP library but MPI 
undoubtedly supports the BSP style (which style is well known without a fancy name and 
is in common use by PVM and MPI programmers) and the conceptual discussion should 
reflect this. MPI is of course the dominant message passing system in international state 
of the art practice.
	Similarly it would be useful to mention other attempts to implement a shared 
memory programming model (The U.S. name for PRAM programming) Treadmarks 
from rice University is the best known system in the USA.
	I recommend publication if the discussion is couched in more familiar form and 
suitable references and discussion of other work is added.

C364/66 Editor's Letter
We enclose a referee report on
C364/66:
	We would be happy to publish a revised version of this paper which addresses 
these comments. We look forward to receiving a resubmittal which should include a 
memo describing your response to the referee.
	We thank you for your interest in Concurrency:Practice and Experience.
We thank you for your interest in Concurrency:Practice and Experience.

C363 Referee Report
This paper addresses an important problem with an interesting algorithm which is 
described quite well. However I found the "Practice and Experience" characteristic of the 
journal, rather unconvincing. Thus the authors do not use "real job information" but 
instead a "simulation" which is not unreasonable but not clearly related to a realistic job 
load. I suggest that the discussion in section 4 needs a clearer motivation. Realistic 
numbers could come either from decomposing a real parallel program or from job 
information from production computer centers. One could also work with users of 
resource management systems such as LSF Codine or Condor. These need the type of 
technology discussed in this paper.

Dear XYZ,
	We enclose a referee report on:
C363:
	We would be happy to publish (without further review) a revised paper addressing 
the referee's comments. Please include with your resubmittal, a memo describing your 
response to the referee report.
	We thank you for your interest in Concurrency:Practice and Experience.