*********************************************************************
 IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering Review Form

General Information

Log Number: 

Title: 

Please Enter Your Full Name: 



Section I. Overview

A.  Reader Interest

     1.  Which category describes this manuscript?
          ___Practice/Application/Case Study/Experience Report
          ___Research/Technology
          ___Survey/Tutorial/How-To

     2.  How relevant is this manuscript to the readers of this periodical?
Please explain your rating.
          ___Very Relevant
          ___Relevant
          ___Interesting - but not very relevant
          ___Irrelevant
Record linkage techniques and efficiency thereof fits well with a wide range
of TKDE articles and readership interest.

B.  Content

     1.  Please explain how this manuscript advances this field of research
and/or contributes something new to the literature. (in "public comments")

2.  Is the manuscript technically sound? Please explain your answer.
          ___Yes
          ___Appears to be - but didn't check completely
          ___Partially
          ___No
Need to check Section 4.  Otherwise okay except as noted below.

C. Presentation

     1.  Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? Please comment.
          ___Yes
          ___No

     2.  Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references?
Please comment.
          ___References are sufficient and appropriate
          ___Important references are missing; more references are needed
          ___Number of references are excessive


     3.  Does the introduction state the objectives of the manuscript in
terms that encourage the reader to read on? Please explain your answer.
          ___Yes
          ___Could be improved
          ___No

     4.  How would you rate the organization of the manuscript? Is it
focused?  Is the length appropriate for the topic? Please comment.
          ___Satisfactory
          ___Could be improved
          ___Poor

     5.  Please rate and comment on the readability of this manuscript.
          ___Easy to read
          ___Readable - but requires some effort to understand
          ___Difficult to read and understand
          ___Unreadable


Section II. Summary and Recommendation

A. Evaluation

     Please rate the manuscript. Explain your choice.
          ___Award Quality
          ___Excellent
          ___Good
          ___Fair
          ___Poor

B. Recommendation

     Please make your recommendation and explain your decision.

          ___Accept with no changes
          ___Author should prepare a minor revision
          ___Author should prepare a major revision for a second review
          ___Reject

Section III. Detailed Comments

A.   Public Comments (these will be made available to the author)

*** In an effort to adhere to our strict page budget and maintain a healthy
yet short publication queue, we are trying to better enforce our long
standing page limitations and formatting guidelines with our authors. In
order to help them adhere to these guidelines, we need your support. One
way you can help us meet these objectives is by suggesting ways to maintain
the lengths of their manuscripts should you decide to ask the author to add
new content.***


B. Confidential Comments (authors will not see these comments)

If you plan to accept, or subject to minor revisions, let me know so I
can double-check Section 4.  However, I think Section 4 may need significant
revision based on my comments, so didn't fully check at this point.

****************************************************************************

Conduct of the Referee

In order to guarantee fairness to the author, the reviewer for a paper
submitted to the IEEE Computer Society should abide by a number of
guidelines not limited to the following:

Respond within the allotted time.
Provide sound, constructive reviews.
Assume that papers submitted for publication are not meant to be public.
Do not use material from a paper you have refereed.
Do not share material from a paper you have refereed with others.
Do not distribute copies of a paper you have been asked to referee unless
the material is already public.
Tell the associate editor or editor-in-chief if there are any conflicts of
interest involved in refereeing a paper.
Any other action designed to protect the authors' rights

The IEEE does outline review guidelines for IEEE editors and referees in
its IEEE Publication Board document, `Review Guidelines for IEEE Editors'.
Items specific to the conduct of the referee are highlighted here, but the
entire document is available at:
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/revpol.html.

Per Section 9, items 3 and 4:

3. IEEE policy requires that referees treat the contents of papers under
review as privileged information not to be disclosed to others before
publication.

(NOTE: A policy of the 1980 PUB. Although implicit to the peer review
system, this policy is explicitly stated in response to the nondisclosure
requirements of a Patent Law affecting many European countries.)

4. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make
any inappropriate use of the special knowledge that access provides.

(NOTE: A policy of the 1983 PUB, and IEEE Policy 6.18.A.6. This explicit
statement of what has always been implicit in the peer review system is in
specific response to a member's complaint that, although publications
routinely establish rules and guidelines for authors, no "code of
publishing practice" exists for Editors and reviewers.)
*************************************************************************