CSC 426
Spring 2017

 Syllabus

 Course Material 

 Assignments 

 Class Project 

 Online Resources 

 Home




Comments/Suggestions


Review Assignment

 

You can select one of the following two papers for this review assignment:

Please take a look at both papers and select the one in which you are more interested.

For the purpose of this review, you can assume that targeted audience of the papers is a group of Computer Science academics (faculty and graduate students) who have general to advanced familiarity with the primary area of research discussed in the papers, but are not experts in the immediate problem area.

Before starting your review, please carefully read the articles listed below:

You will use the following review form to complete your evaluation. This is a much more detailed review form than would be commonly used in most journals or conferences, however, it is designed to guide you through the review process by focusing on the most pertinent aspects of the paper.

For each of the questions in the review form, first briefly describe how the paper addresses that question, and then provide your evaluation and answer to the question (please don't just give yes/no answers). Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for the authors, that were not addressed in the question, at the end of your review.

Due dates & Submission:

  • First draft of review: April 29

  • 2nd Draft: Thursday, June 1


REVIEW FORM

Reviewer Name:

Paper Title:

Authors:

PAPER SUMMARY

Give a short summary of the paper (in your own words)

What are the major contributions of the paper?

CONTENT

1. Is the paper technically sound? Is the technical depth of the paper adequate?

2. Does the paper contain novel and original solutions, approaches, experiments, or insights?

3. Does the paper represent a significant contribution in this area of research?

4. Are the claims and arguments clearly presented and justified?

5. Are the proposed solutions, approaches, and claims properly and adequately evaluated?

6. Have the primary results and conclusions been adequately and
convincingly assessed or verified?

7. Does the paper provide sufficient review of literature and prior work related to the problem? Has the proposed approach/solution been clearly placed in the context of prior work?

8. Has the author clearly expressed the limitations of the research and the approach?

9. Does the paper provide sufficient discussion of the implications the research and subsequent or future work?

ORGANIZATION / PRESENTATION

1. Do the title and abstract provide a clear, accurate indication of the material presented?

2. Does the paper provide clear motivation for the problem and the proposed solution or approach?

3. Is there sufficient background material appropriate for the target audience?

4. Can the structural organization of the paper be improved?

5. Can the literary style of the paper be improved?

6. Are the descriptions, definitions, examples, figures, and tables adequate and clearly presented? Do they aid the understanding of the problem and the proposed solutions?

EVALUATION SUMMARY

1. Provide a rating from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) for each of the following categories:

  • Technical Quality and Soundness
  • Originality and Novelty
  • Significance of Results
  • Rigor of Arguments
  • Clarity of Presentation
  • Organization
  • Literary Style
  • References and Background Information
2. Provide a short summary of the positive and negative aspects of  paper.

3. Your overall evaluation of the paper (select one):
  • strong reject (paper is seriously deficient in important areas)
  • reject (paper is not of sufficient quality to warrant publication)
  • revise (paper is in need of significant improvements and revisions)
  • accept (paper has no major flaws; some revisions may be necessary)
  • strong accept (paper is of highest quality; little change is necessary)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (Mandatory)

Provide additional comments, suggestions, or corrections that you feel the authors should address in a revision of their paper. Include constructive suggestions consistent with your observations and assessments in the earlier sections.




Copyright © 2017-2020, Bamshad Mobasher, DePaul University.