close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

How to Write a Good Review - TUM

код для вставки
How to Write a Good Review
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected])
Chair for Network Architectures and Services
Department for Computer Science
ВЁ Munchen
Technische Universitat
ВЁ
October 25, 2013
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
1
1
Goals
2
Anatomy of a review
3
Common mistakes
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
2
Goals
Learn the scientific workflow!
writing and receiving reviews
Help your fellow student!
feedback for the second version
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
3
Contents of a review
Answers to these questions:
contents
area of research, topic, summary, = abstract
scientific merit
novelty, relevance
scientific quality
method, measurements, assertions, conclusions
clarity
structure, line of reasoning
everything else standing out
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
4
Contents of a review
Worum ging es in dem Paper?
Dieses Paper gibt eine Einfuhrung
zum Thema Femtozellen. Neben einer
ВЁ
Beschreibung der Technologie und der Motivation zum Einsatz von Femtozellen
werden wichtige Problemstellungen aufgefuhrt.
ВЁ
Die Problemubersicht
zeigt sowohl die Probleme in den Bereichen, Integration
ВЁ
in das Mobilfunknetz, Funkinterferenzen mit anderen Basisstationen,
Installation und Betrieb, und Lokalisierung und Synchronisierung als auch
ВЁ
ВЁ
entsprechende Losungsans
atze
auf. Der Autor schildert jeweils die Probleme
und die entsprechenden vom FemtoForum bzw. anderen
ВЁ
ВЁ
Standardisierungsgremien vorgeschlagenen Losungsans
atze.
Da es sich um sich weiterentwickelnde Technologien handelt kann an vielen
ВЁ
Stellen noch keine eindeutige Losung
hervorgehoben werden.
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
5
ACN 2013 – Online Review
Go to http://acn2013.net.in.tum.de/
Fill out the review form
copy&paste prepared text
Upload an annotated PDF
scanned or edited
mark all typos, grammar mistakes, formatting errors . . .
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
6
Form fields
1
Paper summary
2
Reviewer qualification mc
3
Strengths
4
Weaknesses
5
Added value
6
Questions to author
7
Comments to address
8
Relevance mc
9
Writing quality mc
10
Overall merit mc
11
Comments to PC
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
7
Common Mistakes
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
8
too short
25 % of 4 ECTS = 30 hours
read the paper
read the references
understand the topic
give well-founded feedback
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
9
too wrong
The paper was well-written. It was properly structured.
No, it wasn’t.
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
10
too confused
Weaknesses of the paper
. . . that frognication is vastly superior to frobni- cation. However,
all measurements were only done with toads. I doubt that they
would have achieved figures that good if they had used real frogs.
This is not about:
typos
grammar
formatting
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
11
too unspecific
The paper is well written. There are only few spelling mistakes.
The structure of the paper is what one would expect from a paper.
The paper starts with a lengthy survey on frobnication methods,
with a strong focus on frog frobs. However, this is justified, as it
lays the foundation needed to later understand toad frobs, which
are the actual topic of this paper.
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
12
too superficial
Figure 2 on p. 2 is missing the top-most tick on the y axis.
. . . 5 sentences later . . .
On p. 3 l. 23, the comma is missing.
The author claims that frognication is superior to frobnication, but
does neither cite any sources nor provide experimental evidence
to support that claim.
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
13
too lazy
. . . was unclear. Maybe it was explained in the reference, but I did
not check it.
Honest, but still . . . do your homework!
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
14
too skewed
. . . was unclear . . . should have explained first . . . their
measurements are probably flawed . . .
(negative: 20 sentences)
. . . a simple and practical solution to the complicated problem of
...
(positive: 2 sentences)
Overall, this is an outstanding paper, so I recommend . . .
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
15
too reluctant
Point out clearly if something is wrong!
but still be polite
Otherwise you will help no one.
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
16
Questions?
Check the seminar’s web page:
http://www.net.in.tum.de/en/teaching/ss13/seminare/
Stephan-A. Posselt ([email protected]): How to Write a Good Review
17
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
6
Размер файла
88 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа