Big Rib Review

Review Form for Big Rib:

--------------------------------------------------------------
--- For your convenience, this form can be processed by EasyMeal
--- automatically. You can fill out this form offline and then
--- upload it to EasyMeal. 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 starting with --- are comments. EasyMeal 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 starting with *** are used by EasyMeal. Do not
--- remove or modify these lines.
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** REVIEW FORM ID: 29839::13139
*** SUBMISSION NUMBER: 0815
*** TITLE: Big Rib - Hacksteak vom Schwein mit einer würzigen Sauce
*** AUTHORS: Weltbeste Mensa von Allen
*** PC MEMBER: Hungrige Mensaesser
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** 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.

The presented work "Big Rib - Hacksteak vom Schwein mit einer würzigen Sauce" is a piece of minced meat that is pressed into the form of a spare rib. Generally this sounds like a very good and tasty idea. However, as [1] suggests spare ribs should be made from "the lower portion of the pig, specifically the belly and breastbone, behind the shoulder, and include 11 to 13 long bones". Furthermore as [2] point out in their outstanding work on "Mc Rib", that such meat can be boneless and can be put into a sandwich. However, a study conducted by McDonalds and described in [3], prooved that customer acceptance of the MCRib concept prooved marginal, thus [2] had to remove the product from their Restaurants.
The presented paper fails to mention where their approach differs from that of [2]. Additionally it is unclear why "Big Rib" should gain industry acceptance when "Mc Rib" obviously failed. The authors should try to emphasise more on the lack of a sandwhich and bones which distinguishes their work from [1] and [2].
However, there are more design flaws of the presented approach:
The sauce "würzige Sauce" fails to hold its promises as it is neither würzig nor a particular well executed sauce.




Additional References:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spare_ribs
[2]http://www.mcdonalds.de
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McRib
--------------------------------------------------------------
*** 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.


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


REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE:3
4 (expert)
3 (high) 3
2 (medium)
1 (low)
0 (null)
The reviewer is highly familiar with consuming food and has a lot of practical training and experience in doing so.

ORIGINALITY: from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest): 1
1 (strong reject) 1
2 (reject)
3 (weak reject)
4 (borderline)
5 (weak accept)
6 (accept)
7 (strong accept)
Originality is poor since [1] and [2] propose similar concepts, and the advantage of the presented approach is not visible.

QUALITY OF CONTENT: from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest)2
1 (strong reject)
2 (reject) 2
3 (weak reject)
4 (borderline)
5 (weak accept)
6 (accept)
7 (strong accept)
Quality of content of the presented work is very low, however the price of about 1,70 € is very low too. Nevertheless the quality is rejected because the quality is not acceptable for a high quality audience such as the one attending this event.

PRESENTATION: from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest)4
1 (strong reject)
2 (reject)
3 (weak reject)
4 (borderline) 4
5 (weak accept)
6 (accept)
7 (strong accept)
Presentation of the "Big Rib" is borderline. (see picture) The red sauce is a nice contrast to the white plate, however the big rib itself looks rather uninspiring.

PRACTICAL IMPACT: from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest) 1
1 (strong reject) 1
2 (reject)
3 (weak reject)
4 (borderline)
5 (weak accept)
6 (accept)
7 (strong accept
The presented work has absolutely no positive practical impact on the community, since nobody seemed to eat the big rib today.

RELEVANCE: from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest) 6
1 (strong reject)
2 (reject)
3 (weak reject)
4 (borderline)
5 (weak accept)
6 (accept)6
7 (strong accept)
Relevance of the big rib is absolutely given. It can be used in high quantities to rise the body-fat levels of consumers. Therefore it is relevant to the food industry and the presented audience.

OVERALL EVALUATION:-2
3 (strong accept)
2 (accept)
1 (weak accept)
0 (borderline food)
-1 (weak reject)
-2 (reject)-2
-3 (strong reject)
Despite the relevance to the audience, the presented work is rejected. We didn't eat it. We believe that this is not even scientific fast food!

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