Subject: Paper for Concurrency and Computation: P&E From: "David W Walker" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:21:59 +0100 To: fox@csit.fsu.edu CC: David.W.Walker@cs.cf.ac.uk, "Yan Huang" , "Omer F Rana" Dear Geoffrey I would like to submit the attached paper entitled "Object-Oriented Distributed Computing Based on Remote Class Reference" for publication in Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience. The lead author is Yan Huang whom you met at the conference in Italy in June. An earlier version of the paper was submitted to SC 2001, but rejected (for not very good reasons I believe). However, the paper has been revised in accordance with the reviewers suggestions. The SC 2001 referees comments are attached. We have addressed the concerns of reviewer 1. Reviewer 2 liked the paper but somewhat perversely rejected it because s/he didn't believe we had really implemented it, so we have made the code available via the web. Reviewer 3 thought the paper was wonderful. I don't think reviewer 4 really understood the paper. Of course you will want to get your own reviewers, but I thought the SC2001 reviews would be helpful to you. People such as Mark Baker (Portsmouth) and Steve Newhouse (Imperial) would make good reviewers. Best Regards David Prof David W Walker Department of Computer Science Cardiff University PO Box 916 Cardiff CF24 3XF United Kingdom +44 (0)29 2087-4205 (phone) +44 (0)29 2087-4598 (fax) http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/David.W.Walker/ Reviews for pap160 Decision: reject 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.