The Reviewing Process Marie desJardins AAAI-13 Panel Conference Reviewing Best Practices.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Critical Reading Strategies: Overview of Research Process
Advertisements

ENQA – QAA meeting 8-9 December 2005 Birmingham, UK 9 December, – Feedback from workshop groups.
S.FEINDTTEN-Telecom Call for Proposals 2001/1 How to give your proposal greater chances to succeed Sylvie FEINDT
Customer Success is Our Mission MILCOM 2008 Reviewer Guidelines Rev B 8 July 2008.
Johns Hopkins University School of Education Johns Hopkins University Evaluation Overview.
Department of Medicine Three Year Review Workshop Job Descriptions November 21, 2012 Joan Wither Co-Chair, Three Year Review Joan Wither Co-Chair, Three.
Department of Medicine Three Year Review Job Descriptions Job description should be defined when started in the Department of Medicine – last minute changes.
What is Monitoring? Information for panellists. Quality assurance of Authority subjects Monitoring poses the question: “How well is the school implementing.
Formative assessment of the Engineering Design process
Faculty Grievance Committee Training October 26, 2012.
Evaluation and Rating Natural Scientists and Engineers.
Promotion & Tenure Workshop The Dossier. What the Committee Looks for: I nnovation I nitiative I mpact.
SQA School Co-ordinator Conference June 2014 Results Services.
The IGERT Program Preliminary Proposals June 2008 Carol Van Hartesveldt IGERT Program Director IGERT Program Director.
September1999 October 1999 ICML-03 Mini-Tutorial The Three R’s of Publishing Machine Learning Papers: Research, ‘Riting, and Reviews Marie desJardins Rob.
SDM 2012 Student Paper Awards Rob Taylor 10/4/2011.
The reform of A level qualifications in the sciences Dennis Opposs SCORE seminar on grading of practical work in A level sciences, 17 October 2014, London.
Title Your name date. Overview Problem motivation –what is the purpose of the paper, what is the significance of the problem being solved? Context –what.
Presenting Your Research: Papers, Presentations, and People Marie desJardins University of Maryland Baltimore County
Impact of Including Authentic Inquiry Experiences in Methods Courses for Pre-Service Elementary and Secondary Teachers Timothy F. Slater, Lisa Elfring,
UAMS Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Refereeing “And diff’ring judgements serve but to declare, That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where.” – William Cowper, Hope.
Presenting Your Research: Papers, Presentations, and People Marie desJardins KOCSEA Technical Symposium October.
Publication in scholarly journals Graham H Fleet Food Science Group School of Chemical Engineering, University of New South Wales Sydney Australia .
Quality Management.  Quality management is becoming increasingly important to the leadership and management of all organisations. I  t is necessary.
1 CS 178H Introduction to Computer Science Research Why Do an Honors Thesis?
10th Annual AIJA Tribunals Conference Melbourne Session 8: Current Practical Matters of Interest to Tribunals and Tribunal Members Lawyers in Tribunal.
Systems Studies Program Peer Review Meeting Albert L. Opdenaker III DOE Program Manager Holiday Inn Express Germantown, Maryland August 29, 2013.
1 How to review a paper by Fabio Crestani. 2 Disclaimer 4 There is no fixed mechanism for refereeing 4 There are simple rules that help transforming a.
Apropos Climate Change: Related Aspects of Teacher’s Development Interactive part of the workshop.
PROMOTION AND TENURE FOR CLINICAL SCIENTISTS – BOTH PATHWAYS Peter Emanuel, M.D. Laura Lamps, M.D.
ACADEMIC WRITTEN WORK TYPES: ESSAYS REPORTS DISSERTATION FORMAT REFERENCING.
Regular process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects Guidance for Authors.
Kathi Schoonover Director of Research & Sponsored Programs Northeastern State University.
A Manual for Dissertation Yong Zheng DePaul University May 17,
Research Design – Where to Begin…. Purpose of EDD 9300 Provide guidance and help you to: Select a topic Conduct a Preliminary Literature Review Design.
Tips on Fellowship Writing A Reviewer’s Perspective Wendy Havran.
Publication Strategies Gregg Rothermel Professor and Jensen Chair of Software Engineering Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of.
Inter-American Institute (IAI) Proposal Evaluation Paul E. Filmer National Science Foundation Second IAI Summer Institute, July 2000 University of Miami.
Introduction Background info Grabs attention….current statistics where appropriate Why was experiment conducted Main idea CLEARLY stated Show gaps!! In.
How is a grant reviewed? Prepared by Professor Bob Bortolussi, Dalhousie University
Conference Reviewing Best Practices. Panelists Marie desJardins University of Maryland Baltimore County Ariel Felner Ben-Gurion University, Israel Kristian.
DOSSIER PREPARATION MENTORING PROGRAM Session #7July 14, 2015  PANEL: What do Department Chairs Look for in a Dossier?  Review Clinical Statement of.
A clear aim: Specific Positive Recognisable Clarify nouns, verbs, abstract nouns Fits in Authority.
Presenting Your Research: Papers, Presentations, and People Marie desJardins CMSC 601 April 18, 2012 Thanks to.
Reviewing [Ros07] T. Roscoe. Writing reviews for systems conferences. Technical report, ETH Zürich, Mar 2007.
Regular process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects Guidance for Authors.
Reconstitution Workshops School Governor Service.
Who Are We? A Forum of Stakeholders Who Come together to Develop Science-based Solutions.
NATA Foundation Student Grants Process
The Academic Promotions Process
Procedures for Taught Degree students seeking YSJU Research Ethics Approval Does the research involve living human participants, their tissue or their.
School Management Dr. Aravind Banakar –
School Management
School Management
Beijing University of Technology, China, September 28, 2006
Publication Strategies
Science-based decision making: Options for increasing the impact of UN decision making and scientific support to the political process Lynn Wagner IISD.
Heacox Chapter 8: What About Grading?
Middle States Update to President’s Cabinet October 8, 2018
THE Tenure Process: Outside Letters
Frankenstein Research Paper
Rob Holte University of Alberta
Solution Selection: What works?
The Process of Getting Published: Reviews and Rejection
Presented By: GSA Research Recognition Committee
Peer Feedback More important than technology:
Rob Holte University of Alberta
[INSERT TITLE THAT WILL REPRESENT PROJECT OR INITIATIVE]
[INSERT TITLE THAT WILL REPRESENT PROJECT OR INITIATIVE]
Presentation transcript:

The Reviewing Process Marie desJardins AAAI-13 Panel Conference Reviewing Best Practices

Conference Reviewing u Program committees  Selection process  Different models/roles: n Senior vs. area chair vs. regular members u Paper assignments  Keyword-based  Similarity-based (compare to reviewer’s published papers)  Self-selection (bidding) u Discussion and author response u Decisions 7/17/13 2 Review Process and Quality

Purpose of a Review u Evaluate the paper’s scientific merit  Check the validity of the paper’s claims and evidence  Judge the paper’s relevance and significance u Provide constructive feedback to the author 7/17/13 3 Review Process and Quality

AAAI-13 Review Criteria u Goal: identify “interesting but flawed” papers and make sure they are reviewed fairly  Different ways in which a paper can make a contribution  Avoid a conference full of “technically acceptable but uninteresting and incremental” papers u Quality criteria:  Technical quality  Experimental analysis  Formal analysis  Clarity/presentation u Innovation criteria:  Novelty/innovation of question / solution u Impact criteria:  Breadth of interest  Potential for impact 7/17/13 Review Process and Quality 4

Good Reviews Are... u Polite u Fair u Concise u Clear u Constructive u Specific u Well documented u Represent the scientific community 7/17/13 5 Review Process and Quality