Subject: Review paper 3.026 (Parco 99)
Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 14:56:17 -0500
Resent-From: Geoffrey Fox <gcf@npac.syr.edu>
Resent-To: p_gcf@boss.npac.syr.edu
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 12:32:06 +0100
From: Parco99@dutibm.twi.tudelft.nl
Reply-To: Parco99 <parco99@tudelft.nl>
To: gcf@npac.syr.edu
CC: Parco99 <parco99@tudelft.nl>

Dear reviewer,

This mail contains two attachments. The first attachment is the PARCO99
review form and the second attachment is the abstract to be reviewed.
The abstracts are either in plain text or in gzip'ped postscript format.

SEND THE REVIEWS TO:

parco99@tudelft.nl

WITH SUBJECT:

Review paper <number>

If you have any difficulties with the postscript file that we have send to
you,
please send an email to parco99@tudelft.nl.

WE NEED THE REVIEWS BACK ** APRIL 9 ** THE LATEST

Best regards, on behalf of the ParCo99 scientific organising committee,

Henk J. Sips
Program chair PARCO99

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
PARALLEL COMPUTING 1999 - ParCo'99 - Paper Review Form

                    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                    *                               *
                    *        DEADLINE REVIEWS       *
                    *             APRIL 9           *
                    *                               *
                    *   MAIL TO: parco99@tudelft.nl *
                    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Use your editor and search # for items to be filled in

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paper number: 3.026

Title:        Distributed High Performance Computing with OpusJava

Author(s):    E. Laure

Reviewer:      Geoffrey Fox

Reviewernr:   42

PC Member (if different):

Please return to   parco99@tudelft.nl   THE LATEST  by April 9, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE RATE THE PAPER:

1. excellent - definitely accept
2. good - accept with minor changes
3. weak accept - accept with a major revision
4. weak reject - rather reject
5. reject - definitely reject

Your quote: #

TYPE OF PAPER:

1. Regular paper
2. Specialised paper (to be presented interactively)

Your quote: #

CONFIDENCE:

1. Expert in the field
2. Familiar with the field
3. Not familiar with the field

Your quote: #

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS

ORIGINALITY: Are the problems or approaches new? Is this a novel
combination of familiar techniques? Has this or similar work been
previously reported?

#

TECHNICAL CONTENT: How difficult was it to obtain the results? How
much effort has been invested in the research? Are the claims
theoretically or experimentally supported?

#

RELEVANCE to PARCO: How important is the work? Does it attack an
important/difficult problem or a peripheral/simple one?

#

CLARITY: Is the abstract well organized and well written? Will the
paper be accessible to a broad audience?

#

SIZE: Is the size of the abstract adequate? Does it contain enough
information to be able to review the abstract?

#

REFERENCES: Are the references adequate? Is relevant work cited?

#

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

#

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS NOT SEND TO THE AUTHOR(s):

#

END OF REVIEW FORM

***********************  THANK YOU VERY MUCH  !!!!   **********************

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name: laure.ps.gz
   laure.ps.gz    Type: Postscript Document (application/postscript)
              Encoding: BASE64