ELECTRONIC REFEREE-REPORT-FORM 
Nordic Journal of Computing

Manuscript No:
Title:  
Authors:  

*******************************************************************
Recommendation to be withheld from the Author(s) (NOT to be forwarded
to the Author(s)):

__ Accept in present shape 
__ Accept after minor revision 
__ Major revision followed by new referee procedure 
__ Reject 
__ Suggest the Author(s) to offer to other journal

If the Author is invited to submit a revised version, please indicate
whether: 
__ You would like to see the revised version.  
__ You do not think it necessary to check the revision yourself.


Remarks for the Editor (please write ONLY comments that should NOT to
 be forwarded to the Author(s) - you may leave this part blank):



*******************************************************************

Comments for the Author(s)

EVALUATION

__ Excellent  __ Good  __ Fair  __ Poor  __ Outside the scope of NJC

OVERVIEW

A. Content

1. Is this paper of original value?  
__ Yes, definitely 
__ To some extent 
__ Hardly
 
2. Is the paper scientifically correct?  
__ Yes 
__ Probably, although all details have not been checked 
__ Doubtful (for detailed criticism: see below)
 
3. To what extent will the results be useful for other scientists?  
__ Large 
__ Average 
__ Small
 
4. How would you characterize the level of the paper?  
__ For experts only 
__ Useful for people working in related fields 
__ Understandable also for nonspecialists 
__ Superficial
 
5. Is the bibliography reasonable?  
__ Yes 
__ After minor modifications (for details: see below) 
__ No

B. Presentation

1. Is the title adequate?  
__ Yes 
__ No. If no, please suggest alternative
 
2. Does the abstract give a correct description of the contents?  
__ Yes 
__ No. If no, please suggest improvements below
 
3. Is general organization of the paper acceptable 
__ Yes 
__ No (for suggestions: see below)
 
4. With respect to the contents, is the length of the paper
reasonable?  
__ Yes 
__ No; should be increasedy 
__ No; should be decreased

5. How would you rate readability?  
__ Good	   
__ Some effort needeed 
__ Large efforts needeed 
__ Unreadable

******************************************************************

ELECTRONIC REFEREE-REPORT-FORM (Continued) 
Detailed comments (all remarks for the Authors ONLY to be written below):




******************************************************************