Q: You are given a paper review either in Spanish or English language. Based on the given review, evaluate the paper by classifying it to one of the five classes: (1) very negative, (2) negative, (3) neutral, (4) positive, and (5) very positive. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
The paper is well structured. It follows a logical sequence of sections.  The paper does not fix to the Infonor conference template.  The english grammar is poor. It makes the paper difficult to read and follow. Either:  a) rewrite the paper in spanish, or b) make the paper reviewed by a professional traslator  Most of the references are not recent (2005-2010). No new work since 2003? Some references do not indicate year.  Problems with equations, fonts, etc.  Figures 5-17 are not referenced/discussed/explained. It may be better to present these figures as a table.  Both, result analysis and conclusions, declare that GA CHC is better than Pearson´s correlation Algorithm. However, this analysis and conclusion is not supported for a wide variety of situations and conditions. Therefore, a true validation work is missing.
A:
neutral