CPSC 699 Fall 17
Assignment 3: Refereeing
Due: November 14th, 9:00 am
This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment.
Reviewing papers is a frequent job performed by academics and a very important one. It ensures the validity of presented results, helps authors to improve their work, and in some cases serves as facilitator of a new research.Although editors and program committees desire some level of research experience in reviewers, it isimportant to learn the review process early. It is the primary mechanism your peers use to evaluate your work, and it will help you to succeed if you understand the process.
The goal for this assignment is to submit an electronic report – maximum 1 page, detailing your opinion on the paper review process you just reviewed in class.
Article: up to 8 pages in IEEE/ACM/LNCS style (your choice). You should choose your own article and submit it electronically together with your review by the due date.
Submit your work through D2L with a cover page containing your name only. Do not put your ID number on the cover page. Your write-up should be in 12-point type, single-spaced, on letter-size paper, with 1-inch margins.
Journal of Fundamental Sciences Referee Form
Paper Title:
Journal where paper was submitted:
Year:
Please classify paper contribution:
Theory[]
Application[]
Theory and application[]
State of the art review[]
Position Paper[]
Please judge the merit of the contribution according to the following criteria:
Significance of the contribution:
[1] Very poor[ ]
[2] Poor[ ]
[3] Hardly acceptable[ ]
[4] Average[ ]
[5] Good[ ]
[6] Very good[]
[7] Exceptional[ ]
Originality of the contribution:
[1] Very poor[ ]
[2] Poor[ ]
[3] Hardly acceptable[ ]
[4] Average[ ]
[5] Good[ ]
[6] Very good[ ]
[7] Exceptional[ ]
Technical content/soundness of methodology:
[1] Very poor[ ]
[2] Poor[ ]
[3] Hardly acceptable[ ]
[4] Average[ ]
[5] Good[ ]
[6] Very good[ ]
[7] Exceptional[ ]
Experimentation/validation of methodology:
[1] Very poor[ ]
[2] Poor[ ]
[3] Hardly acceptable[ ]
[4] Average[ ]
[5] Good[ ]
[6] Very good[ ]
[7] Exceptional[ ]
Readability and clarity of presentation/organization:
[1] Very poor[ ]
[2] Poor[ ]
[3] Hardly acceptable[ ]
[4] Average[ ]
[5] Good[ ]
[6] Very good[ ]
[7] Exceptional[ ]
Paper language/grammar/style:
[1] Very poor[ ]
[2] Poor[ ]
[3] Hardly acceptable[ ]
[4] Average[ ]
[5] Good[ ]
[6] Very good[ ]
[7] Exceptional[ ]
Overall recommendation:
Accept as is [ ]
Accept after minor revisions [ ]
Accept after moderate revisions[ ]
Reconsider after major revisions[ ]
Reject[ ]
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Please provide written comments and recommendations for author(s):
What is the main contribution of the paper?
What are the key areas where this submission can be improved? (include any additional comments for authors). Be specific and positive, identify strengths and weaknesses.