To make a good review, you may follow these steps.
Briefly summarize the paper, which can be as short as a few sentences. The reason why this is necessary is not only to tell the author what the main contribution of the paper is and how the author achieved it, but also to help the author verify that the reviewer understands his/her approach and interpretation of the results.
State the perception of the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper and specify what makes it a strength/weakness so that the program committee and the author can understand the reviewer's concerns about particular aspects of the paper. This may include novel presentation, demonstration of feasibility, original way of using data, novel application, particularly strong evaluation, or any other aspect that is a strong aspect of this work. Provide more detail. For example, if a method is novel, explain which aspect is novel. If not, explain why.
Describe the clarity of presentation, organization, and other stylistic aspects of the paper. It is important to highlight whether the paper is very clear and difficult to read and understand.
Comment on the reproducibility of the paper. Please indicate whether the paper provides sufficient details about the model/algorithm, dataset, and evaluation. Please take into account the authors' responses to the reproducibility checklist.
Provide detailed constructive comments to help authors revise weak papers or expand strong papers into journal versions. Comments should be supported by detailed arguments. It should also list minor issues such as grammatical errors, typos, and other problems that can be easily fixed by careful editing of the paper's text. Recommend whether to accept or reject the paper. Considering all of the above points, is the paper eligible for publication? Is it a significant advance in the field? Does the paper have a high enough clinical impact to offset a lower degree of methodological innovation?
Provide a rationale for your proposal. What were the main factors in making your assessment? How did you weigh the pros and cons? Be sure to provide the program committee and authors with a clear rationale for accepting or rejecting your overall proposal.
Rank this paper in your REVIEW pile, which will be used to calibrate the overall rating. Please make every effort to avoid ties.