Upload
maegan
View
42
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Review Process - How to review. Fausto Giunchiglia By Fausto Giunchiglia and Alessandro Tomasi. Index: 1. Review Form 1 2. Review Form 2 3. Answer to the Reviews 4. Review Process. 1. Review Form 1. 1. Review Form 1. REVIEWER CODE: 1) Title 2) Author(s) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Review Process - How to review
Fausto Giunchiglia
By Fausto Giunchiglia and Alessandro Tomasi
Index:
1. Review Form 12. Review Form 23. Answer to the Reviews4. Review Process
1. Review Form 1
1. Review Form 1
REVIEWER CODE:
1) Title
2) Author(s)
3) Paper Summary [short description of the message and maybe of how it has been developed. What if more than one message or no message?]
1. Review Form 1
4) Type of Paper/Research described [Chose one of the options below and explain]
- Research (with original results) of which kind (Theory, expemerimental, ...)- Application (case study, ...)- Synthesis of recent advances- Other. Please specify
1. Review Form 1
5) General Ratings [Rate within Bad/Weak/Fair/Good/Excellent] [0/1/2/3/4/5]
Put the score and some text motivating your score about:5a) Relevance (with respect to the reference community) 5b) Originality (incremental, new work, ...) 5c) Significance of the work (how big the gap from the state of the art) 3d) Technical soundness 3e) References 3f) Presentation
1. Review Form 1
6) Technical Soundness [Chose one of the options below and some text motivating the choice]
- Technically correct - Minor errors (indicate them) - Major errors (indicate them) - Unsupported claims (provide a detailed explanation)
1. Review Form 1
7) Presentation [Rate within Yes/Somewhat/No]
Put the score and some text motivating your score7a) Are the title and abstract appropriate?7b) Is the paper well-organized (discuss course and fine grained structure)?7c) Is the paper easy to read and understand? 7d) Are figures/tables/illustrations sufficient?7e) Is the English acceptable? 7f) Is the paper free of typographical/grammatical errors?7g) Is the reference section complete?
1. Review Form 1
8) General Recommendation [Please, chose one of the options below]
- Very strong accept (beautiful paper!) - Strong accept (excellent and important contribution) - Weak accept (good paper, some new interesting ideas) - Weak reject (marginal, weak content, would require a major revision) - Strong reject (unreadable, nothing new, premature, contains major errors)
1. Review Form 1
9) Main Reason for your Decision [For accept choices please indicate one of the options below] - accept because of the originality (good ideas, sound presentation) - accept because of the quality of the proposed synthesis (useful review on recent advances) - other
[For reject choices please indicate one of the options below] - reject because it is not relevant for the conference - reject because of the presentation (unreadable, unstructured) - reject because the content is too premature for really making sense - reject because of the lack of originality (results already known, or similar overview already published) - reject because of major errors
1. Review Form 1
10) Your Level of Expertise (Compared to Level of Others) - I am an expert of the field and know the relevant literature - I understand the problem, I know some of the state of the art - I only have a superficial understandings of the issues
11) Does the paper qualify for the best paper award [Y/N]
12) Comments to the Author(s) [Please, provide here a clear justification of your ratings, in particular with regards to the overall recommendation]
13) Additional Comments to the Author(after circulation of reviews among reviewers) (Can be empty, cannot change previous review)
14) Additional Comments as Answer to Author's Answer and Modifications(Can Be Very Short: - Evaluation Of Author Answer - Value Judgement - Final Score (Possibly Changed))
1. Review Form 1
2. Review Form 2
2. Review Form 2
REVIEWER CODE:
1) Title
2) Author(s)
2. Review Form 2
3) Main Message:
Relevance: How relevant is the paper to the workshop? 0: not relevant at all 1: rather not relevant 2: relevant 3: very relevant Technical Quality: What is the technical quality of the paper? 0: really bad 1: bad 2: good 3: really good
2. Review Form 2
Presentation: What is the overall presentation of the paper? 0: really bad 1: bad 2: good 3: really good Overall Ranking: What is your overall recommendation? 0: strong reject 1: reject 2: weak reject 3: weak accept 4: accept 5: strong accept
2. Review Form 2
Confidence: Reviewer's expertise in the area0: I know little about this area1: I know enough about this area2: I have good expertise in this area Why to accept? What are the most important reasons to accept this paper? (1-3 sentences) Why to not accept? What are the most important reasons NOT to accept this paper? (1-3 sentences) Comments: Detailed comments on the paper (primarily for the authors)
3. Answer to the Reviews
<Brief introduction>LIST OF {<general comment quoted from reviews><your answer arguing how you have accordingly modified the paper>}
Moving now to the more specific comments:LIST OF {<specific comment quoted from reviews><your answer arguing how you have accordingly modified the paper, providing detail but not too much>}
<Concluding sentence>
3. Answer to the Reviews
4. Review Process
4. Review Process
0) Abstract (send it to [email protected] not later than a week before the
presentation)
1) Presentations (Fortunate situation where you may know of what the paper is about)
2) All Papers Submitted by June, 13th 3) Review Allocation (by Program Chair) by June, 20th 4) Reviews Due by July, 4th 5) Reviews circulated to Reviewers for additional comments6) Reviews send to Author by July, 11th 7) Author sends back answer and modified paper by July, 23rd8) Reviewers provide final answer 9) Exam Pass/No Pass (of Authors and Reviewers) by July, 29th
4. Notice!!!
In the paper you have to use the same version of the stylefiles. It is available by downloading it fromhttp://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,3-111-2-124365-0,00.html
Avoid using stylefiles acquired from other sources as these may not be correct
23
How to dopresentations
24
1. Presentation methods
2. Attitude towards the audience
3. How to select content
4. How to structure
5. Introduction
6. Stage fright
7. Main part
Structure
25
8. Using pictures
9. Visual aids
10. Interposed questions, interruptions
11. Final discussion
12. The end
13. Optical – acoustic factors
14. Ancillary conditions
Structure
26
1. Presentation methods
Rule No. 1:Control effect
Rule No. 2:Integrate audience
27
1. Presentation methods
Seminar
Lecture
Presentation with final discussion
Presentation with intermediate
discussion
28
Comparison of some presentation methods
What remainsTime to
prepare / h
80% 4,0
Presentation with Intermediate discussion
60% 2,5
30% 1,7
Lecture 20% 1,0
Open discussion
Presentation with Final discussion
29
2. Attitude towards the audience
Who is the audience
What do they know
What are they interested in
What do they understand
30
2. Attitude towards the audience
Contact with eye Simple and understandable languages Concentrate on the important Credibility Reply to objections Avoid „techno“ language
31
How much?From where?What is interesting?What is the objective?What should the
audience do?
Do not want too much!
3. How to select content
32
4. How to structure –
catch words
Speak as you think – follow the thinking
Use written concept of catch words
33
5. Introduction
Try to find common understanding with the audience
Lead to the subject Initially: create attention
34
Say at the beginning The structure The length Invite to a dialogue
But at the beginning:
Who are you
5. Introduction
35
attention
Length of presentation
Hope that it will end soon
36
6. Stage-fright
Is natural! Everybody has it ! Is not forever!
Afraid to speak
37
Reduce Stage-fright
Be well prepared!
Learn important parts by hard!
Relax!
Look for a positive „point“
Do some contacts before presentation!
39
7. Main part
Introduction
Main partCurrent situationPotential solutionHow to realise
End
40
8. Using pictures / figures
Take from the context of the audience Has to increase the message To explain the issue Does not be an end on itself
Picture
41
8. Metaphorical language
To be a comparison
Should be practial
Story Citation Joke
42
9. Visual aids
Black board Projector Film Videobeam Overhead-Display
43
Grafical Layout Colours – Contrast – Background Clipart-files Fonts (size)
Produce hand outs
Presentation programs
44
What we keep
10% Reading
20% Hearing
30% Seeing
50% Hearing & Seeing
70% Reporting
90% Do it yourself
45
10. Questions
Question
Are welcome Should be answered immediatly Bit can also be delayed or
forwarded to somebody else
Interupptions
ignore! Look at the person! Stopp speaking!
46
11. Final discussion
Announce already in the introduction Write up issues of discussion Keep sequence of questions Repeat questions (if necessary) Draw conclusions
47
12. End
Avoid New questions which do not help in the conclusions
Main ideas Should be summarized
48
12. End
Main idea + review objective + how to realise
=
Good end
49
13. Acoustic factors
No „speaking smoking"
Speak loudly and slowly
You should vary volume and speed
Make breaks
Try presentation beforehand
50
With your body With your hands With your eyes
13. Optical factors
Behave natural!
51
14. Other circumstanceas
Room size
Lighting
Ventilation
Sockets
Other means (Microfon)
Breaks
Reading - How to read
Fausto Giunchiglia
Literature:
Bruno Buchberger, Thinking Speaking Writing
By Fausto Giunchiglia and Alessandro Tomasi
Index:
1. The Role of Literature2. What is literature
2.1 Classify the results 3. The Documentation of Literature4. Steps in the Use of Literature
1. The Role of Literature
“Keep Re-Inventing the wheel”
1. The Role of Literature
For many problems:
• the solutions is already in the literature
• the literature has solutions in similar problems
1. The Role of Literature
Necessary
Useful
but not
Necessary
It is necessary to know
how the literature is organized:
• within your research community
• outside your research community
[translate other concepts
in our community]
1. The Role of Literature
There is an interleaving of:
1) Try to solve the problem yourself
2) Read the Literature
1. The Role of Literature
Interactive Process of Reading Papers:
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
…
Quantity
Depth
1. The Role of Literature
How do I know when I can stop reading?
When I know the 90% of the paperscited by relevant papers
1. The Role of Literature
To keep Scholarship:
• go to conference
• talk to people (best opportunity in conference)
• journals
• proceedings
• web
• …
2. What is Literature
2. What is Literature
More importantthan papers
Main Wayto do Career
1. Monographs / Books
2. Journal Articles
3. Articles in Collections
4. Papers in Proceedings of Conference
5. Papers in Proceedings of Workshop
6. Technical Reports
7. Grey Literature (Ex: Web Sites)
Each research community has:
1-2 Top Journals
1-2 Top Conference
2. What is Literature
2.1 Classify the results
2.1 Classify the results
1. Monographs / Books:
Contents:extensive/complete description of research
Originality:None (2/3 years old)
Note:the research is finished
Quality Control:Very Good
2.1 Classify the results
2. Journal Articles:
Contents:Very good, very crisp, specialized
Originality:Full of two years ago (in CS is obsolete)
Note:Come regularly
Quality Control:Very High (Many shots)
2.1 Classify the results
3. Articles in Collections:
Contents:Very good, very crisp, specialized
Originality:Full of two years ago (in CS is obsolete)
Note:Not regularly
Quality Control:Lower
2.1 Classify the results
4. Conferences:
Contents:New results, almost complete, semi-final
Originality:Good (6 months ago)
Note:Is Refereed
Quality Control:Medium (only one shot: accept or reject)
2.1 Classify the results
5. Workshop
Contents:New results, almost complete, semi-final
Originality:Good (6 months ago)
Note:Is Not Refereed
Quality Control:Medium (only one shot: accept or reject)
2.1 Classify the results
6. Technical Reports
Contents:Detailed about a specific topic
Originality:Maybe
Note:---
Quality Control:Low (No Refereeing Process)
2.1 Classify the results
7. Grey Literature (Ex: Web Sites)
Contents:Random
Originality:Random
Note:The main way to publish our results
Quality Control:Random
3. The Documentation of Literature
3. The Documentation of Literature
• Library- author files- keywords files
• Review Journals- Computing Journal- Artificial Intelligence Review- Scientific Magazines- Scientific Magazines for Spreading Communications- Journal for Publish new Results
• Bibliographies• Citation index• Research index
3. The Documentation of Literature
Research Community are organizedinto societies
Produce:Organized Conferences, Journals, Magazines
Examples of Societies:ACM, IEEE, ECCAI, VLDB, …
3. The Documentation of Literature
Citations Index:
• defines journals
• cites titles, authors, abstract of all paper
Example:ISI, the most important for Science
3. The Documentation of Literature
Research Index:
• the new game
• is on line
• how many times you are cited in Internet
Example:
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com
4. Steps in the Use of Literature
4. Steps in the Use of Literature
1. Use CiteSeer (http://citeseer.nj.nec.com)
2. Ask to Colleagues, Advisor,
Friends, … by e-Mail
3. Consult References
4. Consult Review Journals
5. Ask Authors