The following review has been automatically generated by a program.
The goal is to make fun of certain reviews made by certain reviewers in certain conferences.
Do not use this in your real reviews.
Enjoy!

*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*=--=*

The major problem with this paper is that there is nothing new here. A lot of this has already been proposed before. Some examples that come to mind are: Bajracharya's OOPSLA posters chair's welcome: Sourcerer: a search engine for open source code supporting structure-based search, Kunz's Fast detection of communication patterns in distributed executions, Xie's Informal tool demonstrations: 3D visualization for concept location in source code, Sillito's Empirical methods and program understanding: Questions programmers ask during software evolution tasks, Sriram's Special issue: AI in engineering, just to name a few.

The paper talks about "...classes frequently used by other classe...", but I haven't seen any discussion on that (whether in the theoretical part of the paper nor in the validation part). It is just mentioned. For this kind of work, this is _relevant_ how an approach can deal with that.

Some of the well-known concepts have been just renamed: "search" is nothing else than "scour, ||fan, frisk, shake down"; "source" is "derivation, fount, fountain, fountainhead, inception, mother, origin, provenance, provenience, root, rootage, rootstock, spring, well, wellhead, wellspring, whence"; parts of the approach have not even gotten a name.

The paper uses the term "source code." Crista Lopes's sourcerer is a system for source code search. The paper cannot use the same term and generate confusion (in many dimensions). A simple google search would have helped with the naming.

The techniques are explained at a rather shallow level. No details. So, for example, what's the precise definition of "code"? How is search related to code? The paper talks about information, but why is that important? The role of "entity" in the approach is not clear. When the paper gets to a bit more detail on these things, it stops abruptly.

The paper does not provide enough details for the work to be reproducible.

The difference to Google code search facility is also not discussed.

I could not understand Fig 1; this kind of "visualization" is not effective (and also not intuitive).

In general, I found the paper disappointing, hardly any technical details, too many claims, not well described. I could not find convincing scientific depth in the paper.