--------------------------------------------------------------
*** PAPER NO: 0 0 -0
*** TITLE:
*** Abstract:
*** Keywords:
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** Reviewer:
--------------------------------------------------------------
--- If the review was written by (or with the help from) a
--- reviewer different from the PC member in charge, add
--- information about the reviewer in the form below. Do not
--- modify the lines starting with ***
*** REVIEWER'S FIRST NAME: (write in the next line)
*** REVIEWER'S LAST NAME: (write in the next line)
*** REVIEWER'S EMAIL ADDRESS: (write in the next line)
--------------------------------------------------------------
--- In the evaluations below, uncomment the line with your
--- evaluation or confidence. You can also remove the
--- irrelevant lines
*** RELATIONS TO THE JOURNAL TOPICS
--- 3 (high)
--- 2 (medium)
--- 1 (low)
*** ORIGINALITY OF METHODOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS
--- 3 (high)
--- 2 (medium)
--- 1 (low)
*** TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS ON THEORIES AND EXPERIMENTS
--- 3 (high)
--- 2 (medium)
--- 1 (low)
*** APPEALING TO THE AUDIENCE OF THE DISCUSSED ISSUES
--- 3 (high)
--- 2 (medium)
--- 1 (low)
*** OVERALL EVALUATION AS RESEARCH PAPER:
--- 3 (strong accept: without any trivial improvements for publication)
--- 2 (accept: without any substantial improvements for publication)
--- 1 (weak accept: with some important improvements for publication)
--- 0 (borderline paper: acceptable with substantial or considerable improvements; might be good for the next regular issue)
--- -1 (weak reject: sound theories but not enough experiments; otherwise, neither original or appealing theories with sound experiments, so far)
--- -2 (reject: with some important errors on theories or experiments, or on both of them)
--- -3 (strong reject: so terrible as not acceptable in the IJOCI)
*** OVERALL EVALUATION AS INDUSTRIAL IMPLEMENTATION:
--- 3 (strong accept: without any trivial improvements for publication)
--- 2 (accept: without any substantial improvements for publication)
--- 1 (weak accept: with some important improvements for publication)
--- 0 (borderline paper: acceptable with substantial or considerable improvements; might be good for the next regular issue)
--- -1 (weak reject: sound theories but not enough experiments; otherwise, neither original or appealing theories with sound experiments, so far)
--- -2 (reject: with some important errors on theories or experiments, or on both of them)
--- -3 (strong reject: so terrible as not acceptable in the IJOCI)
*** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE:
--- 3 (high)
--- 2 (medium)
--- 1 (low)
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW:
--- Please provide a detailed review, including justification for
--- your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless
--- the PC chairs decide not to do so. This field is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** CONFIDENTIAL REMARKS TO THE EDITOR IN CHIEF:
*** END
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------