Podcast
Questions and Answers
- It is recommended to be inclusive in early drafts and keep discussion of excluded papers in a separate ______.
- It is recommended to be inclusive in early drafts and keep discussion of excluded papers in a separate ______.
file
- The editor's responsibilities include selecting appropriate referees, ensuring timely and adequate reviewing, and making the final decision on ______.
- The editor's responsibilities include selecting appropriate referees, ensuring timely and adequate reviewing, and making the final decision on ______.
acceptance
- Reviewers should consider factors such as relevance, influence, and thoroughness of literature review when deciding which papers to include in their review.
- Reviewers should consider factors such as relevance, influence, and thoroughness of literature review when deciding which papers to include in their review.
criteria
- Rigorous demonstrations of validity in experiments should be carefully described, thorough, and ______.
- Rigorous demonstrations of validity in experiments should be carefully described, thorough, and ______.
- Authors may be sensitive to criticism, and reviewers may feel unexcited and disbelieving, leading to the reviewing process as a mechanism for reconciling different ______.
- Authors may be sensitive to criticism, and reviewers may feel unexcited and disbelieving, leading to the reviewing process as a mechanism for reconciling different ______.
- Referees should only decline to review a paper with good reason and should state their limitations as a ______.
- Referees should only decline to review a paper with good reason and should state their limitations as a ______.
- Comparison to existing work is an important part of demonstrating ______.
- Comparison to existing work is an important part of demonstrating ______.
Poor reviews, although saving the referee effort, make more work for the research community as a whole: if a paper’s shortcomings are not adequately explained, they will still be present if the paper is ______.
Poor reviews, although saving the referee effort, make more work for the research community as a whole: if a paper’s shortcomings are not adequately explained, they will still be present if the paper is ______.
In a review recommending acceptance, there is no further chance to correct mistakes—the referee is the last expert who will carefully examine the paper prior to its going into ______.
In a review recommending acceptance, there is no further chance to correct mistakes—the referee is the last expert who will carefully examine the paper prior to its going into ______.
Referees need to be ______.
Referees need to be ______.
A referee who recommends acceptance requires at least a passing ______ with the literature—enough to have reasonable confidence that the work is new and to recommend references as required.
A referee who recommends acceptance requires at least a passing ______ with the literature—enough to have reasonable confidence that the work is new and to recommend references as required.
Referees should offer obvious or essential references that have been overlooked, but should not send authors hunting for papers unnecessarily, especially if they are ______ to find.
Referees should offer obvious or essential references that have been overlooked, but should not send authors hunting for papers unnecessarily, especially if they are ______ to find.
The implicit purpose of reviewing papers is to share expertise between scientists.
The implicit purpose of reviewing papers is to share expertise between scientists.
Reviewing papers only serves the purpose of deciding whether they should be accepted for publication.
Reviewing papers only serves the purpose of deciding whether they should be accepted for publication.
Reviews include only written comments, with no other criteria used to determine acceptance.
Reviews include only written comments, with no other criteria used to determine acceptance.
A positive review should contain a clear statement of the paper's contribution.
A positive review should contain a clear statement of the paper's contribution.
Referees should not provide guidance for authors when recommending that a paper be rejected.
Referees should not provide guidance for authors when recommending that a paper be rejected.
Flashcards are hidden until you start studying
Study Notes
Guidelines for Peer Reviewing Papers in Computer Science
- Reviewers should consider factors such as relevance, influence, and thoroughness of literature review when deciding which papers to include in their review.
- It is recommended to be inclusive in early drafts and keep discussion of excluded papers in a separate file.
- The editor's responsibilities include selecting appropriate referees, ensuring timely and adequate reviewing, and making the final decision on acceptance.
- Authors may be sensitive to criticism, and reviewers may feel unexcited and disbelieving, leading to the reviewing process as a mechanism for reconciling different perspectives.
- Proof and analysis are accepted means of demonstrating the worth of proposals in algorithms, and experiments can also be significant contributions.
- Rigorous demonstrations of validity in experiments should be carefully described, thorough, and verifiable.
- Comparison to existing work is an important part of demonstrating validity.
- Deciding whether to recommend rejection or resubmission after major changes can be a difficult issue.
- Rejection is appropriate if getting the work to an acceptable standard will require substantial additional research and writing.
- Active researchers should expect to referee two to three times as many papers as they submit.
- Referees should only decline to review a paper with good reason and should state their limitations as a referee.
- Reviewers should be prepared to referee even when they are not confident in their judgment of a paper.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
