In this task, you are given a set of paper reviews in English and Spanish language. Based on given reviews, your job is to generate decision, i.e., "accept" or "reject" for the given paper. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
One example is below.
Q: Review_1: En esta investigación se trata un tema que cada vez es más importante en ámbitos académicos y empresariales. Por otra parte, se utilizan métodos de análisis de datos complejos y muy adecuados a los objetivos de la investigación y los autores los que sirven de referencia básica para la investigación son muy adecuados.  En la medida en que el objeto material de la investigación es el individuo, entiendo que, cuando se describe la muestra, es conveniente, no sólo describir el perfil de la empresa, sino el perfil del individuo entrevistado (edad, sexo, puesto que ocupa, etc.). •	El apartado conclusiones merece, a mi juicio, una mayor atención, que incluya no sólo los resultados de la investigación, sino una discusión más amplia. •	Las limitaciones de la investigación hacen referencia al tamaño de la muestra y al tipo de muestreo empleado, pero no hacen referencia a la dimensión del modelo. En este sentido, sería conveniente plantear, como línea de investigación futura, la ampliación del modelo con nuevas variables e indicadores •	las referencias bibliográficas son anteriores al año 2009. Sugiero consultar las siguientes o	The effect of organizational support on ERP implementation DonHee Lee,  Sang M. Lee, David L. Olson, Soong Hwan Chung.  Industrial Management + Data Systems.  Wembley:2010.  Vol. 110,  Iss. 2,  p. 269-283 o	Predicting the behavioral intention to use enterprise resource planning systems :An exploratory extension of the technology acceptance model Fethi Calisir,  Cigdem Altin Gumussoy,  Armagan Bayram.  Management Research News.  Patrington:2009.  Vol. 32,  Iss. 7,  p. 597-613 o	Organizational adoption of information technologies: Case of enterprise resource planning systems Onur Kerimoglu,  Nuri Basoglu,  Tugrul Daim.  Journal of High Technology Management Research.  Greenwich:2008.  Vol. 19,  Iss. 1,  p. 21 Review_2: Abstract: Needs to have a definition of ERP - can't assume the reader knows what this means.  Intro: Avoid 1 sentence paragraphs (page 1) The introduction is rather long - it seems to actually be two different sections: an introduction (1st four paragraphs) and 1+ page of background and hypothesis. Overall - at 1.5 pages the intro is rather long for a paper that is 4 pages total.  Methodology: I think there are a lot of assumptions in regards to what ERP are and how they work.  While the paper is a statistical study, it would have benefited with a context of an actual example.  The samples are from small to medium size companies (how many?) with 49 use case (how do these relate?).  Results: Discussion is too limited - it assumes that a reader is very familiar with the area, and that may not be the case.
A: accept
Rationale: Reviews seem positive towards paper, hence, the generated label is 'accept'.
Q: Review_1: The paper describes an experience concerning the automated inspection of spectra for the Pipeline Hubble Legacy Archive Grism data.  Comments:  In the conclusions the authors say that "We have identified two classes of flawed spectra which were not picked up by the automatic classification because of their very small number of training samples. Per construction machine learning techniques can not classify such outliers." This sentence should be further explained. As Hastie, Tibshirani, and Friedman say in The Elements of Statistical Learning (see Chapter 7): "it is too difficult to give a general rule on how much training data is enough; among other things, this depends on the signal-to-noise ratio of the underlying function, and the complexity of the models being fit to the data. " So, by just saying that the number of training samples is small you do not provide enough information to decide whether machine learning techniques are adequate or not to solve a problem.  Other minor comments:  + If reference [2] has not yet been written or published it should be deleted from the paper.  The dataset may be of scientific importance.  It is mainly descriptive. Review_2: This manuscript addresses an interesting solution based in machine learning techniques to classify spectra legacy data of the Hubble Space Telescope in order to publish the results and "good" spectra in Internet to scientific community. The manuscript is well-written and results are robust. Experiment is sound and the manuscript seems acceptable in the current form. The work can be short, but very interesting to the Infonor and JCC community.  The main problem of the paper is that it is difficult to compare results for the classifiers utilized. A confusion matrix and parameters for each classifier could clarify results. Review_3: Interesting application domain.  Nothing new from a machine learning perspective. They authors should provide more information about the models they have obtained with the different classifiers (feature subset selection used, selected features, accuracies, statistical significance on the differences on accuracies, the models themselves, ...). Semi-supervised classification is the appropriate method for the last paragraph in the "Methodology" section. 
A:
accept