CS2125 Paper Review Form - Winter 2018

Reviewer: Laura Walsh

Paper Title: Biology as reactivity

Author(s): J. Fisher, D. Harel, T. Henzinger. 

1) Is the paper technically correct?
 [x] Yes
 [ ] Mostly (minor flaws, but mostly solid)
 [ ] No

2) Originality
 [ ] Very good (very novel, trailblazing work)
 [ ] Good 
 [x] Marginal (very incremental)
 [ ] Poor (little or nothing that is new)

3) Technical Depth
 [ ] Very good (comparable to best conference papers)
 [ ] Good (comparable to typical conference papers)
 [x] Marginal depth
 [ ] Little or no depth

4) Impact/Significance
 [ ] Very significant
 [x] Significant
 [ ] Marginal significance.
 [ ] Little or no significance.

5) Presentation
 [x] Very well written
 [ ] Generally well written
 [ ] Readable
 [ ] Needs considerable work
 [ ] Unacceptably bad

6) Overall Rating
 [ ] Strong accept (award quality)
 [x] Accept (high quality - would argue for acceptance)
 [ ] Weak Accept (borderline, but lean towards acceptance)
 [ ] Weak Reject (not sure why this paper was published)


7) Summary of the paper's main contribution and rationale
   for your recommendation. (1-2 paragraphs)

This paper identifies the applicability of techniques used to model reactive systems within the field of computer science in the field of biology. It gives a great overview of which aspects from dynamic systems modelling can be used to model things like molecules, cells and populations of species in the biology domain (which are much more complicated than their digital counterparts). The authors are very clear on which overall concepts would map to which between reactive systems and biology. Overall this paper has high educational value.

The paper itself is technically correct. It introduces marginal originality as it is mainly a commentary on two existing bodies of work and how they could be used effectively together. The level of technical depth is fitting, since this work covers areas of both the computer science domain and the biology domain. The paper is of high quality and is well written. 


8) List 1-3 strengths of the paper.  (1-2 sentences each,
identified as S1, S2, S3.)

S1. The level of detail with respect to the biology concepts seemed appropriate for the audience (who the authors described to be mainly computer scientists).

S2. Paper is very well written, the authors are able to explain their ideas very clearly and effectively.

S3. Authors clearly describe the challenges that are associated with modelling biological systems. This helps to motivate their work and gives strength to their suggestion to use reactive systems as a sort of template for modelling biological systems.


9) List 1-3 weaknesses of the paper (1-2 sentences each,
identified as W1, W2, W3.)

W1. Paper's layout could have been a bit more organized. Content is not separated into clear, distinct sections. This makes it a bit more difficult to read.

W2. No graphics were used. Having the information and ideas presented visually as well as textually would have helped to reinforce concepts and would have added to the paper overall.