1 / 77

Review Process - How to review

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)

maegan
Download Presentation

Review Process - How to review

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. Review Process - How to review Fausto Giunchiglia By Fausto Giunchiglia and Alessandro Tomasi

  2. Index:1. Review Form 12. Review Form 23. Answer to the Reviews4. Review Process

  3. 1. Review Form 1

  4. 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?]

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. 1. Review Form 1 7) Presentation [Rate within Yes/Somewhat/No] Put the score and some text motivating your score 7a) 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?

  9. 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)

  10. 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

  11. 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]

  12. 1. Review Form 1 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))

  13. 2. Review Form 2

  14. 2. Review Form 2 REVIEWER CODE: 1) Title 2) Author(s)

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. Confidence: Reviewer's expertise in the area 0: I know little about this area 1: I know enough about this area 2: 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) 2. Review Form 2

  18. 3. Answer to the Reviews

  19. 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>

  20. 4. Review Process

  21. 4. Review Process 0) Abstract (send it to tomasi@dit.unitn.it 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 comments 6) Reviews send to Author by July, 11th 7) Author sends back answer and modified paper by July, 23rd 8) Reviewers provide final answer 9) Exam Pass/No Pass (of Authors and Reviewers) by July, 29th

  22. 4. Notice!!! In the paper you have to use the same version of the stylefiles. It is available by downloading it from http://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. Structure 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

  25. Structure 8. Using pictures 9. Visual aids 10. Interposed questions, interruptions 11. Final discussion 12. The end 13. Optical – acoustic factors 14. Ancillary conditions

  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 Time to prepare / h What remains 80% 4,0 Open discussion Presentation with Intermediate 60% 2,5 discussion Presentation with 30% 1,7 Final discussion Lecture 20% 1,0

  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. 3. How to select content How much? From where? What is interesting? What is the objective? What should the audience do? Do not want too much!

  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. 5. Introduction Say at the beginning • The structure • The length • Invite to a dialogue But at the beginning: Who are you

  35. attention Hope that it will end soon Length of presentation

  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!

  38. 7. Main part Introduction Main part • Current situation • Potential solution • How to realise End

  39. 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

  40. 8. Metaphorical language • To be a comparison • Should be practial • Story • Citation • Joke

  41. 9. Visual aids • Black board • Projector • Film • Videobeam • Overhead-Display

  42. Presentation programs • Grafical Layout • Colours – Contrast – Background • Clipart-files • Fonts (size) • Produce hand outs

  43. What we keep 10% Reading 20% Hearing 30% Seeing 50% Hearing & Seeing 70% Reporting 90% Do it yourself

  44. 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!

  45. 11. Final discussion • Announce already in the introduction • Write up issues of discussion • Keep sequence of questions • Repeat questions (if necessary) • Draw conclusions

  46. 12. End • Avoid • New questions which do not help in the conclusions • Main ideas • Should be summarized

  47. 12. End Main idea + review objective + how to realise = Good end

  48. 13. Acoustic factors • No „speaking smoking" • Speak loudly and slowly • You should vary volume and speed • Make breaks • Try presentation beforehand

  49. 13. Optical factors • With your body • With your hands • With your eyes Behave natural!

  50. 14. Other circumstanceas • Room size • Lighting • Ventilation • Sockets • Other means (Microfon) • Breaks

More Related