Tags:
create new tag
view all tags

Review: Paper @ Healthcom 2014

Why do we do this?

The reviews are modified for formatting purposes only.

History

This was the first submission of the paper to any conference.

Intro

Dear Mr. Benjamin Bockstege:

Congratulations - your paper #1569954189 ('A Management System for Motion-Based Gaming Peripherals for Physical Therapy Instrumentation') has been accepted by 2014 IEEE 16th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services (Healthcom 2014), and will be presented as Work in Progress paper in IEEE Healthcom 2014, and will be published in the Proceedings of IEEE Healthcom 2014 and the IEEE eXplore. The tentative Technical Program of the conference will be available online shortly at http://www.ieee-healthcom.org/ .

The final manuscript is due by August 31, 2014, and you must be registered for IEEE Healthcom 2014 by August 15, 2014, to upload your paper. Final manuscripts are to be uploaded through EDAS.

Please find more details in the following paragraphs.

(1) Submission of the final version of your paper:
The final manuscript is due by August 31, 2014. At least one author of the accepted paper must register to IEEE Healthcom 2014 at the full rate to upload the final version. The detailed registration instructions are available at http://www.ieee-healthcom.org/registration.html#.Udg8Vev7MzU

Final manuscripts are to be uploaded through EDAS using "Upload paper" link accessible from the accepted paper details. Each accepted manuscript should not exceed seven (7) IEEE style pages.

(2) IEEE copyright form
At the moment of final manuscript submission (due by August 31, 2014) the Electronic IEEE copyright transfer agreement must be accepted electronically using "Copyright" link accessible form the accepted paper details.

(3) Publication Policy
Papers accepted for IEEE IEEE Healthcom 2014 will be included in the conference Proceedings, IEEE XPlore, and EI Index, with the exception that IEEE reserves the right to exclude any paper from distribution after the conference (e.g., removal from IEEE Xplore) if the paper is not presented at the conference. Papers that are removed from IEEE Xplore will not be available through the EI Index.
To be published in the IEEE IEEE Healthcom 2014 Conference Proceedings and IEEE XploreŽ, an author of an accepted paper is required to register for the conference at the full (member or non-member) rate and must present the paper at the conference. Registration fees must be paid prior to uploading the final IEEE formatted, publication-ready version of the paper. For authors with multiple accepted papers, one full registration is valid for up to 3 papers. Accepted papers will be published in the IEEE IEEE Healthcom 2014 Conference Proceedings. Accepted and presented papers will be published in the IEEE IEEE Healthcom 2014 Conference Proceedings and in IEEE XploreŽ.

Please refine your paper according to the review comments before making the final camera-ready paper submission. You can find the review reports at the following link:

Thank you and best regards,

IEEE Healthcom 2014 Chairs

Review 1

*** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (4)

*** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the
analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Solid work of notable importance. (4)

*** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Significant original work and novel results. (4)

*** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Well written. (4)

*** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

- Interesting use of motion-based gaming peripherals.
- Important results considering the problem of data's heterogeneity.

*** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

- No comments

*** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

- No recommendation

Review 2

======= Review 2 =======

*** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Excellent (5)

*** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the
analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)

*** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Significant original work and novel results. (4)

*** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Well written. (4)

*** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

The authos propose a management system for motion-based gaming peripherals for physical therapy instrumentation. The paper describes the approach for delivering a robust, accurate, and scalable framework for motion-based gaming peripherals, specifically targeted at physical therapy in the clinical and research settings.

*** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

The paper is sometimes a bit vague in the proposed solution and it is not clear to this reviewer the GAIN compared to the state of the art. The authors describe quite well the problems and the issues. They report several data, but what is the gain of the proposed approach compared to others? This is a bit missing.

*** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

Please see above. Also the writing should be improved in some places.

Review 3

======= Review 3 =======

*** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research.
Good (4)

*** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the
analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour.
Valid work but limited contribution. (3)

*** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper.
Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3)

*** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references.
Well written. (4)

*** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper

Good paper, describing well the design and showing some results on acquisition of two different signals.

*** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper?

We can wonder why you choose to be so dependant of Microsoft Windows. Kinect or Balance Board have their drivers that can be used under linux or whatever OS, and you could have taken some external library that are not from microsoft to create something that can be ported more easily.

*** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted.

Be careful to some mistakes that are done in english (some  little corrections needed). Correct also the "32feet.NET version 3.4).
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | More topic actions
Topic revision: r1 - 2014-07-14 - AaronStriegel
 
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright © 2008-2018 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback