This is a verbatim transcript of a review I got for one of my papers.

<sarcasm>

Feel free to cut and paste and use this review if you are rushed for time.

</sarcasm>
  • Familiarity
    • Evaluation=Some knowledge of this area (3)
  • Presentation and clarity (Rate the presentation and clarity)
    • Evaluation=Could be improved (3)
  • Importance (Rate the importance of this topic to <Conference name>)
    • Evaluation=Worth reporting (3)
  • Validation and thoroughness (Rate the papers technical correctness):
    • Evaluation=Too many loose ends (2)
  • Originality and insightfulness (Rate the paper for originality):
    • Evaluation=Worth reporting (3)
  • Overall (Your overall assessment of the paper):
    • Evaluation=Weak Reject (2)
  • Detailed comments (Please provide detailed feedback to help the TPC to assess the paper and to help the authors improve their paper.):

This paper proposes <fill in the name of the system> to do <what it does>. The design is comprehensive and worth considering, but the evaluation in the paper falls short of expectations for a conference like <conference name goes here>.

The <system name> design is quite complex, with many elements that deviate from common practice. However, the analysis and testbed experiments described in the paper isolate only a small subset of these elements and involve very limited usage scenarios. To be convincing in its claim that the benefits of <system name> outweigh its costs, the paper would need to examine in detail the impact of more of the design elements, and include more and different real-world scenarios.