Tags: Essay Writing PhrasesLegal Business PlanEssay About Advantages And Disadvantages Of Travelling By PlanePublish A Research PaperTrig Homework SolverMobile Detailing Business PlanEssay On Success In Life
There are 17 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page.An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article.
There are many good resources that describe the paper reviewing process already, including those that explain the process (and its imperfections) and those that provide instructions for writing a good review (as well as techniques to avoid).
There are also a few nice summaries of the review process for conferences in different areas of computer science that lend visibility into the process (e.g., here and here).
The process isn’t exactly the same as the review process for a full paper, but it is a lightweight way to have students experience the process first-hand in a low-stakes setting, and see both sides of the process (submission and review) at the same time. There are some significant distinctions between reading papers vs. When reading a paper for your own enrichment, your goal is to gather information as quickly as possible.
In next week’s blog post, I will discuss program committee meetings in general, as well as some observations from this year’s (and previous years’) in-class experiences with the mock PC. In this case, you are a who seeks to understand the context and content of existing work, to (for example) better understand how your own research might fit into the bigger picture or learn about techniques that might apply to your own work. A reviewer’s goal is to first and foremost determine the suitability of a paper for some conference and second, to provide feedback to the authors to help them improve the paper in subsequent revisions.
Scientists commonly use reviews to communicate with each other and the general public.
There are a wide variety of review styles from ones aimed at a general audience (e.g., Scientific American) to those directed at biologists within a particular subdiscipline (e.g., Annual Review of Physiology). Thus, a large focus of your paper should be a description of the data that support or refute that point of view.
Whenever I read reviews I receive for a rejected paper, I try to look past specific detailed quibbles (or “excuses” for rejecting the paper) and figure out the big picture: the reviewer couldn’t find a reason to accept the paper. As you progress in your career, you will be asked to serve on program committees yourself, whereupon you’ll find yourself with tens of papers to review over the course of a couple of months. The paper may have made an incorrect or imperfect assumption. These types of issues certainly reflect problems with a paper, but they do not necessarily constitute a reason to reject a paper if they do not affect the correctness or significance of the main underlying conclusion or contribution of the paper.
Ironically, it is sometimes easier to review a group of papers than a single (or a few) papers, because seeing a group of papers helps you “calibrate” your scores and rankings of papers according to the general quality of papers that have been submitted to the conference. The experiments may not have been as thorough as you liked. Therefore, the first two questions I ask myself when reviewing a paper are: (1) Does the paper have a great idea? (or, alternatively, to what extent does it realize that great idea, since typically no paper is water-tight). Judging a paper’s contribution turns out to be highly subjective, which is why the review process remains so uncertain.
Program committee chairs sometimes provide guidelines for writing reviews, such as these.
I will not reiterate or summarize those previous articles here, but they are all definitely worth a read.