1. How to Really Review Papers CS 8803 AIC

2. Prvulovic: CORD 2 Paper Reviewing Algorithm Read the paper Think about it Take a look at related work Leave it alone for a few days Read it again Write the review

3. Prvulovic: CORD 3 Thinking about it What is the paper trying to do –Observation/Motivation Programs often do X… In the future, Y won’t work… –Implementation Here’s how to exploit this observation –Evaluation We get great perf/power/reliaility/… improvement, or It didn’t work and here’s why

4. Prvulovic: CORD 4 Contributions Did you gain an important insight –A new problem? –A new way to look at a problem? –Counter-intuitive or unexpected? Did it propose a good solution to a problem? –Explanation why solution should work –Explanation why it’s a better solution Did it provide a good quantitative evaluation –Should work in real processors? –Should it gain or lose relevance in the future? –Should work on real applications?

5. Prvulovic: CORD 5 Summary Like a paper abstract –Short and self-contained (no undefined acronyms) –Short high-level description of contribution But without the “sales pitch” –Avoid quoting numbers –What is really the contribution

6. Prvulovic: CORD 6 Good points Successful contributions –If you learned something, that’s a good thing –If could be useful for real systems, that’s good List the most important things –If you only list “Well written”, paper is really bad There are ALWAYS good points

7. Prvulovic: CORD 7 Bad points Motivation problems –Unclear whether there is a problem –Unclear why it’s an important problem Implementation problems –Unclear why solve the problem this way –Unclear what tradeoffs are Evaluation problems –We all know about these Organization problems –Difficult to follow? List the most important bad points –If “difficult to read” is the only problem, it’s a great paper

8. Prvulovic: CORD 8 Questions to answer Important questions only –If answer can’t change your recommendation don’t ask the question here (see next slide) Can it be answered in a few days? –If lots of work needed to answer, don’t ask here Unsure if you got something right? –If decision depends on something, and you are not sure if your understanding is correct DO ask it here

9. Prvulovic: CORD 9 “General Comments” Section Help the authors improve the paper Always be constructive –Even if paper is hopeless: “The problem of cache conflicts in 1024-way set associative caches is not very important, and the authors should focus on lower-associativity caches” All grammar/writing/organization issues go here!

10. Prvulovic: CORD 10 Confidential Comments Only put things that are important and would disclose your identity –“My group did this already in 1999 and we published it in ISCA that year”

11. Prvulovic: CORD 11 Scoring (numbers) Compare to other papers in the same journal/conference/class So, compare to other papers in this class Weak accept –Similar in quality to lower half of accepted papers Strong accept –Similar to upper half of accepted papers Neutral/Undecided –Would be in bottom 10% of accepted papers Strong reject –You would argue against accepting it

12. Prvulovic: CORD 12 Always the big picture Don’t focus on minor issues –Very easy to find lots of these Focus on make-or-break issues –If X wasn’t there, it would be a much worse paper –If X done right, it would be a much better paper Always consider the space –Don’t ask for it if you don’t think something else should be removed or made shorter