The review for each paper should be structured as follows:

• Summary: Explain the key ideas, contributions, and their significance. This is your abstract of the paper. The summary should be phrased to help the authors of the paper [and potential editors] to understand the rest of your review and to be confident that you understand the paper.

• Strengths: What about the paper provides value -- interesting ideas that are experimentally validated, an insightful organization of related work, new tools, impressive results, something else? Most importantly, what can someone interested in the topic learn from the paper?

• Weaknesses: What detracts from the contributions? Is the necessary literature cited? Does the paper lack controlled experiments and - if possible - statistical tests to validate the contributions? Are there misleading claims or technical errors? Is it possible to understand (and ideally reproduce) the method and experimental setups by reading the paper?

• Rating and Justification: Carefully explain why the paper should be accepted or not. This section should make clear which of the strengths and weaknesses you consider most significant.

• Additional comments: minor suggestions, questions, corrections, etc. that can help the authors improve the paper, but are not crucial for the overall recommendation.

• Next, give a score for each paper out of clear reject, weak reject, weak accept, clear accept for each paper.

• Finally, as this may be easier sometimes, provide a RELATIVE assessment of the two papers: which one did you like better and why?