======================================================================
		  GECCO 2001 REVIEWER REVIEW FORM


To purpose of this form is to give authors the opportunity to comment
on the quality of the reviews they received for their submissions to
GECCO 2001.

The comments provided in this form will be NOT be used to modify
the outcome of the review process. They will be mainly used to decide
whether the reviewers did or did not do a good job and, consequently,
if they should or should not be considered for future GECCO's.

An author's comments will not be passed to the reviewers unless the
author explicitly agrees.

In order to submit this form email one completed form for each review
of each submission to the chair of the "deme" that dealt with the
submission. Feedback must be received by email by the relevant deme
chair by April 13, 2001.

The addresses of the deme chairs are:

Genetic Algorithms & Classifier Systems 
Annie Wu - aswu@cs.ucf.edu

Genetic Programming and Evolvable Hardware 
Bill Langdon - W.Langdon@cs.ucl.ac.uk

Evolution Strategies and Evolutionary Programming 
Hans-Michael Voigt - voigt@gfai.de

Real-World Applications 
Mitsuo Gen - gen@ashitech.ac.jp

Alife, Adaptive behavior, and Agents
Sandip Sen - sandip@kolkata.mcs.utulsa.edu

Ant Colony Optimization
Marco Dorigo - mdorigo@ulb.ac.be

Evolutionary design of engineered structures
Shahram Pezeshk - s-pezeshk@memphis.edu

DNA, quantum & molecular computing
Max Garzon - garzonm@msci.memphis.edu

Evolutionary scheduling and routing
Edmund Burke - ekb@cs.nott.ac.uk


----------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: GECCO 2001 SUBMITTING AUTHORS

GECCO 2001 SURVEY

PAPER TITLE AND REFERENCE NUMBER
   (please use separate forms if multiple papers were submitted) 

AUTHORS:
   (this field will be removed if this form is passed to the reviewer)

FINAL OUTCOME: (please delete all but one) 
     talk
     poster
     rejected

REVIEWER NUMBER:
   (please send one form per reviewer)

COMPLETENESS OF YOUR GECCO 2001 REVIEWS:
Compared to other conferences, what is your rating of the completeness
of the GECCO 2001 review documents that you received from the reviewers
(please, delete all but one answer):

___ significantly more detailed and extensive
___ somewhat more detailed and extensive
___ about the same
___ somewhat less detailed and extensive
___ significantly less detailed and extensive
___ no opinion


HELPFULNESS OF YOUR GECCO REVIEWS:
Compared to other conferences, what is your rating of the helpfulness
and usefulness of the GECCO review documents that you received:
(please, delete all but one answer): 

___ significantly more helpful
___ somewhat more helpful
___ about the same
___ somewhat less helpful
___ significantly less helpful
___ no opinion


OVERALL OPINION OF YOUR GECCO REVIEWS:
Compared to other conferences, what is your rating of the overall
quality of the GECCO review documents that you received: 
(please, delete all but one answer):

___ significantly better
___ somewhat better
___ about the same
___ somewhat worse
___ significantly worse
___ no opinion


ABSOLUTE RATING OF YOUR GECCO 2001 REVIEWERS: 
What is your recommendation if this reviewer volunteers to be a
reviewer for the GECCO'2002 conference:

4 = definitely accept
3 = probably accept
2 = uncertain
1 = probably reject
0 = definitely reject


DO YOU WANT THIS FORM (ANONYMISED) TO BE PASSED TO THE REVIEWER?
(please delete as appropriate)

  yes
  no


COMMENTS FOR CO-CHAIRS ONLY: 
      (these will be removed if this form is passed to the reviewer)