Knowledge and Information Systems (KAIS): An International Journal
==================================================================

REVIEW FORM
***********

Reviewers are encouraged to read the "Guidelines for Reviewers of the
KAIS Journal" on the Web (http://kais.bigke.org/gdreview.shtml).

Please refer to the KAIS Reviewer Awards (at
http://kais.bigke.org/reviewerawards.shtml) for information
about each reviewer's mandatory rating by the handling editor and the
KAIS reviewer certificates and award books.

Paper Number:
Paper Title:
Author(s):

Name of Editorial Board Member:
Name of Reviewer (if different from EB member):

Date Sent:
Date to be Returned:

RATINGS OF PAPER
[Please rate the following by entering a score between -3 to 3
 with 0 being the average based on the following guidelines:
  3: Strong Accept (As good as any top paper in reputable journals)
  2: Accept (Comparable to good papers in reputable journals)
  1: Weak Accept (I vote acceptance, but won't argue for it)
  0: Neutral (I don't like it, but I won't object if others like it)
 -1: Weak Reject (I would rather not see this paper accepted)
 -2: Reject (I would argue to reject this paper)
 -3: Strong Reject (Definitely detrimental to the journal quality if
     accepted)]

        Originality of the paper:
        Technical soundness:
        Significance:
        Clarity of presentation:
        Relevance to KAIS:
         - Is the paper topic on the KAIS topic list?  ( ) yes ( ) no

LENGTH (relative to the useful contents of the paper)

      About right:
      Should be shortened:
      Should be extended:

  If the paper should be shortened, please indicate an expected number
  of pages (in its submission format) to be removed:

OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

      Reject:
      Accept with no changes:
      Accept subject to minor revisions:
      Author should prepare a major revision for a second review:
       (Not applicable if the paper in question is itself a major
        revision of a previously reviewed paper.)

  If a major revision, will you be willing to re-review a revised version of this paper? 
  Yes ( ) No ( ) 
  (An "no" answer is equivalent to a reject recommendation.)

  If the paper is accepted, it should be published as a

       regular paper:
       short paper:

A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE RATIONALE FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION
(5 lines expected)



DETAILED COMMENTS FOR AUTHOR(S)
(Please enter your comments for the author(s) giving your reasons for
 accepting or rejecting the paper by considering the following
 suggested points: (1) main contributions; (2) positive aspects;
 and (3) negative aspects. In particular, you are encouraged to
 substantiate negative comments. If you claim that the work is not
 original, please give specific references to the earlier allegedly
 similar work.)



CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD
(As many lines as you like.)