1. All reviews for the week are due on Monday of the week.
   Typically, 2 reviews per week. 
2. Reviews to be submitted by Team (of 2).
3. On each review, mention who is lead reviewer for the paper.

Also mention the percentage contribution of each member towards the review.

name1 | %x | %y |   (name1's view of contributions)
name2 | %a | %b |   (name2's view of contributions)

* What a review is not ...
  - Copy of abstract and summary
  - Verbatim description of important paras

* What a review is ...
  - Your understanding of the paper
  - What was novel/interesting ... why?	
  - Applicability to other problems/scenarios
  - +ves/ -ves of approach/experiments
  - Well-thought out/described extensions
  - Thoughts/views beyond the paper

* Paper review procedure
  - Reviews to be done in groups of 2
  - Lead+partner jointly write review for each paper 
  - Lead, leads discussion
  - Spends 3-4 hours per paper for detailed reading
  - Partner 1-2 hours per paper
  - L+P discuss paper and jointly write review
  - Discussion with others highly encouraged
  - Aimed at understanding paper
  - What you write should be your own
  - Lead will be graded out of 10 

* Put yourself in the shoes of a paper reviewer. Try to be as critical
  as possible about assumptions, results, approach, motivation, experiments
  etc. presented in the paper. 
  Present your case for/against your comments.

* Convey *your* understanding of the paper, make connections to other 
  related problems and approaches, comment on pros/cons, state extensions. 

* Do no re-write abstract, conclusions, future-work in paper.

* Possible structure for report:
  - retrict review to space provided in the review format
  - briefly (in 3-5 sentences) state problem/application/motivation
  - mention challengs, why the problem is interesting/non-trivial
  - comment on approach details and its validity, assumptions, errors
    or improvements etc.
  - how well is the experimental section presented?---are claims
    verified, are experiments enough/thorough, additional experiments
  - identify possible externsions and related open research problems
  - be specific

  "this approach does not consider mobility".
  this extension is no use unless you specify what aspects of
  solution/assumptions does mobility affect or suggestions on
  how to account for mobility in solution etc. initial ideas
  towards dealing with mobility can be review extensions point.