Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

reviewing

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 2

									              How to Review Papers

   A review should always be polite, respectful to the author(s),
    and helpful for improving the paper, regardless of whether you
    recommend acceptance or rejection.
   Start the review with one or two sentences summarizing the
    paper.
   Communicate clearly the strengths and weaknesses of the
    paper.
   Make sure that your comments give the reasons for your
    recommendation.
   Be especially clear in justifying a recommendation of rejection
    and provide feedback the author(s) can use to improve the
    paper/work.
   If you feel the author(s) should be aware of related work, try to
    provide specific references.
   Try to give, in terms of quality, the kind of review you would like
    to receive for your own work.
   Keep the original paper you reviewed for a few months (3 in
    case of conferences, up to 6 in case of journal papers) so that
    you can discuss your review in case any controversy arises.
   Do not distribute submitted papers, they are meant to be
    confidential.
   Here are some (transcribed) tips for paper reviewing from Allan
    Newell:

    When we get a paper to review, at the beginning we should
    always have as the default that we accept the paper. While
    reading the paper, we may start raising specific objections along
    the issues in the review form, namely the goals are not stated,
    the system is not well described, the approach is not novel or
    not validated, etc. etc.

    Each objection weighs a little against our initial default
    acceptance. Rejecting a paper is to see if these objections weigh
    more than our threshold, based on our experience with other
    other conferences, papers, and advice from the specific
    conference. (Of course, the review can also raise the initial
    default acceptance, and then it's even a clearer accept.)
     One word of care that I recall: It may happen that we raise
     either unjustified objections or support to a paper. In particular
     in AI, it may be rather common that we completely "disagree" or
     "agree" with the paper's approach/results. We have to be very
     careful, as much as possible, not to include objections or support
     that corresponds to subjective, or sometimes dogmatic, opinions
     about the work.

[ Friendly advice brought to you by Maja Mataric´.]

								
To top