1 / 9

Reviewing

Reviewing. Pieter.Hartel@utwente.nl. [Ros07] T. Roscoe. Writing reviews for systems conferences. Technical report, ETH Zürich, Mar 2007. http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/troscoe/pubs/review-writing.pdf. Research is a creative process. Study the literature Think of a research question

jackson-hansen
Download Presentation

Reviewing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reviewing Pieter.Hartel@utwente.nl [Ros07] T. Roscoe. Writing reviews for systems conferences. Technical report, ETH Zürich, Mar 2007. http://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/troscoe/pubs/review-writing.pdf

  2. Research is a creative process • Study the literature • Think of a research question • Find an answer • Evaluate the answer • Write paper using standard format • Submit to conference or journal • Several Reviewers read the paper • The PC or Editor decide verdict • Celebrate if accept, else ... Cyber-crime Science

  3. Purpose of the review • Quality assurance • Justification of accept/reject • Feedback to the authors • Communicate your thoughts to the rest of the PC • An opportunity to clarify your own thoughts Cyber-crime Science

  4. Steps writing the review • Read the paper first, scribbling notes in the margin • Lookup references if needed • Write the review • Summarise the paper in your own words • What in your opinion is the contribution? • How well does the paper fit the conference? • Write helpful comments for the authors on the basis of your scribbles (more...) • Be cautious and constructive Cyber-crime Science

  5. Types of comments • Have the authors missed relevant related work? • Is the paper well written? • Any technical flaws? • Anything important that is missing? • Anything especially cool? • Would this lead to a good presentation? • Potential for a best paper award? • Evidence of plagiarism and fraud? Cyber-crime Science

  6. Program Committee Meeting • Preparation • Reread the papers and your reviews • Be sure to be able to explain your standpoint • Try to understand the standpoint of other reviewers • Have a look at the papers you did not review • Meeting • Be fair • Be concise • Try to reach a consensus • Above all else be professional! Cyber-crime Science

  7. Mini-conference • Must attend, 14 Jan,13:30-17:30, WA 4 • 5 min pitch (slides via email) • A3+ poster (bring on paper) • Best paper awards • Selected papers can be published Cyber-crime Science

  8. Final mark • We will mark pitch and poster • We will read each paper and set aside unfair reviews • Paper mark is a weighted average of the overall evaluation and the reviewers confidence • Final mark based on all of the above Cyber-crime Science

  9. Exercise • Write a review of “Overcoming the Insider” [Wil09] R. Willison and M. Siponen. Overcoming the insider: reducing employee computer crime through situational crime prevention. Commun. ACM, 52(9):133-137, Sep 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1562164.1562198 [Har09] P. H. Hartel. Review of: “Overcoming the insider: reducing employee computer crime through situational crime prevention" by Willison R., Siponen M". Computing Reviews, page CR137444, Nov 2009. http://www.computingreviews.com/review/review_review.cfm?review_id=137444 Cyber-crime Science

More Related