Review form for the special issue on variable/feature selection
		Isabelle Guyon and Andre Elisseeff editors		
		isabelle@clopinet.com -- aelissee@hotmail.com	

========================================================================		
A	Summary	Summarize briefly the contents of the paper:		
========================================================================		
B	Questions	Provide answers in text and grades on a scale 0 to 2 (0=worst, 2=best)		
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------		
1	Scope		Is the paper relevant to feature/variable selection? (0 1 2)		
2	Novelty		Does the material constitute a novel unobvious contribution to the field
			or if it is tutorial in nature, does it review the field appropriately? (0 1 2)		
3	Usefulness	Are the methods, theories, and/or conclusions particularly useful 
			(usefulness should be well supported by results)? (0 1 2)		
4	Sanity		Is the paper technically sound (good methodology, correct proofs, 
			accurate and sufficient result analysis)? (0 1 2)		
5	Quantity		Does the paper contain enough interesting material? (0 1 2)		
6	Reproducibility	Are the methods introduced or considered sufficiently described 
			to be implemented and/or to reproduce the results? (0 1 2)		
7	Demonstration	Has the efficiency, advantages, and/or drawbacks of the methods 
			introduced or considered been sufficiently and convincingly 
			demonstrated theoretically and/or experimentally? (0 1 2)		
8	Comparison	Has a sufficient method comparison been performed? (0 1 2)	 	
9	Completeness	Is the paper self contained, rather than referring to other publications
 			extensively? (0 1 2)		
10	Take-aways	Does the paper clearly state its objectives (in the title, abstract, and
			introduction) and delivers them (in the abstract, body of the text, 
			and conclusion)? (0 1 2)		
11	Bibliography	Is the background properly described in the introduction and/or
			discussion, with an adequate bibliography? (0 1 2)		
12	Outlook		Are the results critically analyzed and further research directions
			outlined in a discussion or conclusion section? (0 1 2)		
13	Data availability	Are the data made available to other researchers? (0 1 2)		
14	Code availability	Is the implementation made available to other researchers? (0 1 2)		
15	Readability	Is the paper easily readable for machine learning experts
			interested in feature/variable selection? (0 1 2)		
16	Notations		Do the authors comply with the guidelines found in
			http://www.clopinet.com/isabelle/Projects/NIPS2001/call-for-papers.html
			particularly with respect to the notations? (0 1 2)		
17	Figures		Is the paper well and sufficiently illustrated by figures? (0 1 2)		
18	Formalism	Are the methods clearly formalized by a step by step procedure 
			(e.g. algorithm pseudo-code or flow charts provided)? (0 1 2)		
19	Density		Is the length appropriate, relative to the contents? (0 1 2)		
20	Language	Is the English satisfactory? (0 1 2)		
========================================================================
C	Comments	Add other detailled comments, corrections and suggestions:	
========================================================================