INSTRUCTIONS TO REFEREES For a contribution to be acceptable for publication in a journal, it must comprise novel material not previously published in a technical journal. The novelty will usually lie in original results, methods, observations, concepts, or applications, but may also reside in syntheses of/or new insights into previously reported research. In a regular paper, the title, abstract, introduction, and summary should be sufficiently informative to make the contributions of the paper clear to the broadest possible audience, and to place them in context with the related work. In addition to these fundamental requirements, acceptance for publication depends on a number of important criteria relating to reader interest, technical content, and presentation. To assist the referee in addressing these criteria, the Review form includes a short answer OVERVIEW (Section III) as well as an open form for DETAILED COMMENTS (Section IV). The principal intent of the Overview is to raise the kind of questions that should be addressed in assessing the paper. In other words, the Overview provides a list of the criteria referred to above and, in this sense, serves as a part of these instructions. In addition, the short answers to these questions provide a uniform synopsis of the review for both the editor and the author(s). The essential part of the evaluation, however, is the information contained in the reviewer's Detailed Comments (Section IV).Please try to provide one or more pages of comments in this section. At minimum, please provide one half-page of comments. It is hoped that these comments will be guided by the responses indicated in the Overview, with emphasis placed on points that substantiate the recommendation to the editor. A recommendation to accept for publication, whether with no changes or with minor revisions, should be reserved for manuscripts that describe novel work and satisfy the readership, content, and presentation criteria indicated in the Overview. If major revisions are recommended, the referee should point these out as specifically as possible and should differentiate changes regarded as optional from those judged as mandatory. If the revisions required are extensive, it is perhaps best to reject the paper and recommend preparation of a "new", heavily revised manuscript for resubmission to the journal. If a paper is rejected mainly on the basis of reader interest, the reviewer may wish to recommend submission to a more appropriate journal or conference. Papers with little or no salvageable material should be rejected outright and discouraged from later submission.