Detailed Review (Part I)
Please, evaluate each category with a numerical value on a scale 0-10. For
additional comments use (if necessary) separate pages.
-------------------------------
1. Paper represents an important new/original research trend and/or attacks
new/old problem.                                         ................    

2. Paper contributes to a significant advance in the field it deals with.

3. Paper is understandable to broader scientific audience, not only to
specialists.

4. Paper is technically sound (free of technical, mathematical, logical or
other faults or inconsistencies; please mark the necessary corrections in
the text or make suggestions on separate pages)
===============================================================================

Detailed Review (Part II)
Please answer each question by circling YES or NO. For additional comments
use (if necessary) separate pages. 
---------------------------------   
a. Paper contains previously unpublished material                  YES/NO
b. Is the paper appropriate for this journal?
c. Has earlier work been adequately cited in the references?
   If NOT, what is to be added?
d. Are there any redundant contents? If YES, what should be eliminated?
e. Is there any missing material that should be added? 
   If YES, what should be added?
f. Is English reasonably correct? If NOT, suggest corrections.
===========================================================================

Recommendation

A. Publish as is.
B. Publish with minor corrections or additions as noted.
C. Major changes and a second review required.
D. Reject. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If the paper is published it should be published as:
    1. "short paper"
    2. "regular paper"

How confident you are of your evaluation (on a scale of 1-10)?

Reviewer's name                                 Signature and date