View this PageEdit this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearchHelp Guide


IEEE Pervasive Computing Review Form (V2.0)

1. Preserve delimiters like , , etc.
2. Replace ??? with your input.
3. Fractional scores (like 3.5 or 2.8) are ok
4. Ignore parts that don't apply to this type of submission
5. Everything will be seen by the authors except the clearly
identified part at the bottom.

Paper number: PC99

Title: Consumer Culture and Pervasive Retail

Submission type: Project Overview
/Research paper
Project overview

[All submission types]
Relevance to magazine: 2
/5 = Burning issue of the day; 4 = Timely and relevant;
3 = Worth reporting;
2 = Yawn; 1 = Much ado about nothing/

[All submission types]
Presentation and clarity: 3
/5 = Lucid and eloquent; 4 = Easily understandable;
3 = Could be improved;
2 = Hard to understand; 1 = Dense and impenetrable/

[All submission types]
Reviewer expertise: 2
/5 = I'm an authority on this topic; 4 = My work overlaps this topic;
3 = I'm know this stuff well, but don't work on it;
2 = I'm somewhat familiar with this stuff; 1 = This is new to me/

[Research papers only]
Depth of contribution: ???
/5 = Deep and Impressive; 4 = Good, but could be improved;
3 = Useful contribution, but not earthshaking;
2 = Ho Hum; 1 = Seriously flawed/

[Retrospectives only]
Historical accuracy and perspective: ???
/5 = Insightful and eye-opening; 4 = Accurate and useful;

3 = Useful, but lacks some balance or detail;
2 = Bland and boring; 1 = Serious distortions and/or omissions/

[Survey/Tutorials only]
Completeness and Balance: ???
/5 = Comprehensive and thorough; 4 = Covers almost everything relevant;
3 = Useful, but some notable omissions;
2 = Patchy and incomplete; 1 = Serious distortions and/or omissions/

[Project overviews only]
Integration: 1
/5 = Fits together like a perfect puzzle; 4 = A few missing pieces;
3 = Big gaps/omissions;
2 = A disjointed mess; 1 = Poorly-disguised research paper/

[All submission types]
Overall recommendation: 1
/5 = Award quality; 4 = Accept with minimal revision;
3 = Accept with major revision but no re-reviewing;
2 = Accept with major revision and re-reviewing; 1 = Reject/

Detailed comments for the authors:

The paper presents the idea that "we are on the
verge of a significant shift in consumer culture" and how that
will affect standard food retailers. The main conclusion
is that a pervasive retail experience (as illustrated by the MyGrocer
system) would allow retailers to adapt to this shift successfully.

The authors used the MyGrocer application as their sole example,
making the paper appear to be more of a Project Overview than a
Research paper.

The key contributions appear to be the empirical user study

(60 users specifically chosen from a "Loyalty club" to prevent
issues with regard to privacy from skewing acceptance data), and
although this study suggests that the MyGrocer prototype would be
accepted (by loyalty club members) and make the shopping experience
more enjoyable, it was a limited trial with a limited subgroup of

Essentially, I was not impressed with the conclusion or point of the paper.
I felt that the single system/study was not enough to conclusively
demonstrate the author's point.

The paper felt disjointed, with the first sections motivating
many problems (to the retailer) such customer culture shift and problems
with replenishment strategies. It was assumed these problems would be
fixed by a pervasive retail environment, although the only evidence for
this was the "enjoyability" of the shopping experience reported in the
conclusions. The writing was slightly stilted, and although this did not
detract too much from the paper, it should be proofread again for issues
such as: "industrialization era" -> "Industrialized era"
"militancy or environmental" -> "militancy or environmentalism"
"project be separating"-> project by separating"

Information below this line will NOT be seen by authors

Comments for EIC and AEICs only:

I had a hard time deciding if this was a research paper or a
project overview. (It was only slightly better as a project
overview.) As a research paper it did not attempt to make an
important contribution and did so poorly.

Reviewer: JS