CISC 879 Software Testing and Maintenance
Preclass Discussion Preparation (PDP) Form - Stage 2

Now, you have hopefully learned how to identify and articulate the different key components of active technical reading. The goal of the stage 2 form is to learn how to rephrase the main message of a reading in a very concise and clear manner, and write more of a technical critique.

Reviewer Name:

Summary of the Paper:

This section should be a short paragraph (4-6 sentences), that summarizes the following:
Problem Statement: In one sentence only, state the main problem targeted by the authors. Note that the problem should not be confused with what they pose as an approach or solution. It is a problem posed to be solved. No mention of the approach should be made here.

Proposed Solution: In 2-3 sentences maximum in your words, rephrase the key insight and the overall proposed solution the researchers put forth for solving the problem stated above.

Their Evaluation: In 1 sentence, describe what the authors did to attempt to evaluate the goodness of their solution. Did they perform analytical analysis, experimental studies, implement the technique as part of a tool and perform user studies? Also, indicate what metrics they used to evaluate - time, space, usability, precision of output,...? In 1 sentence, what were their conclusions based on their evaluation?

Paper Review:
Technical Content:
In one (less than 10 sentences) paragraph, give an assessment of the technical merit of this work, with respect to originality, soundness, and overall significance of contribution. Since you are most likely not familiar with the state of the art in solving their targeted problem, you have to rely on their related work description. Originality should be judged on how well they demonstrate that their strategy solves an unsolved problem in a novel way. Soundness should be judged on whether you believe their assumptions are reasonable and you are convinced that their technical approach is valid. Mention any limitations of the solution, and threats to validity of the evaluation of the solution (either as indicated by the authors or as you see it). For significance, judge how much impact you believe the research will have on furthering the state of the art, given the evaluation results.

In one (less than 5 sentences) paragraph, mention questions that are unanswered by the paper, or additional studies that could be performed to help strengthen the technical contribution of the paper.

In one paragraph, discuss your views of the clarity, style, organization, and language. Suggest changes that could be done to further improve the understandability of the paper by an audience containing experts in the general area but not in the particular subject.