--------------------------------------------------------------
--- For your convenience, this form can be processed by EasyChair
--- automatically. You can fill out this form offline and then
--- upload it to EasyChair. Several review forms can be uploaded
--- simultaneously. You can modify your reviews as many times as
--- you want.
--- When filling out the review form please mind
--- the following rules:
--- (1) Lines beginning with --- are comments. EasyChair will
---     ignore them. Do not start lines in your review with ---
---     as they will be ignored. You can add comments to the
---     review form or remove them
--- (2) Lines beginning with *** are used by EasyChair. Do not
---     remove or modify these lines or the review will become
---     unusable and will be rejected by EasyChair
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW FORM ID: 361010::198847
*** SUBMISSION NUMBER: 19
*** TITLE: Texture Classification Using Energy Features
*** AUTHORS: (anonymous)
*** PC MEMBER: Daichi Sirano
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW:
---  Please provide a detailed review, including justification for
---  your scores. This review will be sent to the authors unless
---  the PC chairs decide not to do so. This field is required.
Though the approach seems not so bad, presentation is very poor. First, the authors should carefully proofread before submission. The paper is as if it were before proofread. For example, Section 1.2 precedes two Sections 1.1. Or, "at the feature works" should be "as future works." Furthermore, considering authors' not very good English writing capability, the authors should avoid too complicated expression. E.g., "which have been presented by Haralick" might be better like "which was proposed by Haralick."

The authors claim to propose NEW algorithm, but most papers in the Reference list are too old to claim so, except for two. The authors should describe a good history continuously of development of this technique. Then probably, should conclude the history, like "See (Rachidi 2008) for more details."

Also citation for "the method using Wavelet" is very poor. It must be the most important part to describe "How the Wavelet transform is successfully applied to texture recognition, and how the authors' proposition is different from those proposed so far, thus how the proposition is unique. The reviewer does not find such description in the paper.

The format of Reference should be more well-organized.

The experimental data to verify the authors proposal is also poor.

So, the reviewer wants to encourage the authors to improve the submission more and more from the above mentioned point of view, expecting a good camera-ready version.


--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REMARKS FOR THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE:
---  If you wish to add any remarks for PC members, please write
---  them below. These remarks will only be used during the PC
---  meeting. They will not be sent to the authors. This field is
---  optional.

--------------------------------------------------------------
--- If the review was written by (or with the help from) a
--- subreviewer different from the PC member in charge, add
--- information about the subreviewer in the form below. Do not
--- modify the lines beginning with ***
*** REVIEWER'S FIRST NAME: (write in the next line)

*** REVIEWER'S LAST NAME: (write in the next line)

*** REVIEWER'S EMAIL ADDRESS: (write in the next line)

--------------------------------------------------------------
--- In the evaluations below, uncomment the line with your
--- evaluation or confidence. You can also remove the
--- irrelevant lines
*** OVERALL EVALUATION:

---  3 (strong accept)
---  2 (accept)
---  1 (weak accept)
---  0 (borderline paper)
-1 (weak reject)
---  -2 (reject)
---  -3 (strong reject)

*** REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE:

---  4 (expert)
---  3 (high)
2 (medium)
---  1 (low)
---  0 (null)

*** RELEVANCE TO THIS CONFERENCE: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
---  2 (poor)
---  1 (very poor)

*** ORIGINALITY/UNIQUENESS: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
2 (poor)
---  1 (very poor)

*** ENGLISH READABILITY: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
2 (poor)
---  1 (very poor)

*** PAPER ORGANIZATION/PRESENTATION: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
2 (poor)
---  1 (very poor)

*** HAS GOOD SURVEY BEEN DONE?: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)

---  5 (excellent)
---  4 (good)
---  3 (fair)
2 (poor)
---  1 (very poor)

*** END
--------------------------------------------------------------