This includes both positive and negative relations; perhaps you have a strong personal relationship with one of the authors, or perhaps one of the authors slighted you in the past. Avoid having to fight your own bias. Learning to read critically is of key importance when performing a review, but it is also the best way to learn how to write well—if you are able to turn the same critical eye to your own work, you will be much better at fixing potential problems with your own work before you submit it.
Human–computer interaction - Wikipedia
When reviewing a paper, I find it almost always necessary to print out the paper so that you can make notes and comments on the document as you read it. It also helps if you currently lack internet connectivity. When reading a paper for a review, plan on reading the entire paper at least once, probably twice especially if you are new to reviewing. If you have not read the full paper, you are not doing your job.
In addition, you will most likely have to re-read sections of the paper such as the technical description more than twice to make sure that you understand all aspects.
IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing
Do not start writing your review before you have finished this initial read phase do make notes, however. Bear in mind that reading critically also means getting your priorities right. Some errors in a paper are of minor importance to the general state of the work, whereas other errors are not so minor. It is important to make this distinction and not punish an otherwise good paper with sound and clear ideas for, e. It is possible, even easy, to be too critical.
Human Machine Systems Technical Committees
Most reviewers read papers looking for reasons to reject the paper. This is not necessarily good, because this approach may very well punish good but non-traditional ideas that have a potential for revolutionizing a field. Try to look for reasons to accept a paper instead. Another often occurring phenomenon for reviewers especially new reviewers is to get a feeling of jealousy when reading a paper, especially one that introduces a novel idea that is conceptually simple yet has not been proposed in the past.
After a few times of getting back reviews of this kind yourself for your own work, you will start to realize how frustrating this is for the authors. This is the litmus test for a good review, regardless of whether it is critical or supportive of a paper. When you receive a paper to review, you typically also get a review form to fill out as you conduct your review. Review forms look different depending on the conference or journal; use the specific format given to you by the organizers. These days, conferences and journals alike tend to have web-based submission systems, so filling out a review form is usually done in your web browser.
Human Machine Systems
I always recommend writing your review on your own local hard disk and then uploading the finished form when you are done. This is so that you have your own copy of the review for potential issues down the road , as well as to guard against issues with your web browser crashing and losing all your typed text, or even the submission system losing your review it can happen.
Most review forms ask you to give numerical values on different categories, including the technical contribution, the significance, the originality, and the technical soundness. Often you also get to give an overall rating, which is typically the most important measure and states whether you think the paper should be accepted or not. Ratings have different scales depending on the conference, but a typical 5-scale conference rating has the following format:. For journals, the ratings typically have the following format:. In addition to ratings on the paper, you are often also asked to give a self-evaluation of your expertise in the topic of the paper.
This is your chance to tell the committee how confident you are in your review. For example, if you are an expert and know most of the literature in a specific field, your rating will carry more weight than if you only have passing knowledge about the field. Be fair to yourself and to the authors by trying to be as accurate as possible here.
A common mistake among junior reviewers is that they rate themselves too highly in their expertise. While it may certainly feel like you are an expert in a certain domain if you just submitted a paper and you have surveyed the literature, this may not be totally accurate. An expert is someone who has published papers, preferably several times, in the particular domain. If this is true for you, go ahead and mark yourself as an expert, but if not, you and the authors may be better served if you are a little more humble. Finally, another issue to consider is whether you have sufficient expertise to even review a given paper.
Try to avoid accepting reviews for papers that you are only passingly familiar with. Most, if not all, review forms include a free-text area where you can write your review sometimes several such areas where you are asked to answer different aspects of the paper. This is perhaps the most important part of the review, because a review with only numerical ratings even if they are high and supportive of the paper is worthless if they are not backed up by text that justifies the ratings.
It is difficult to give an exact amount of text needed in a proper review, and it depends on the type of paper, but a rule of thumb is that you want at least three or four paragraphs of text. Very good or very bad papers sometimes warrant less than that if it is clearly obvious which category the paper belongs to.
Borderline cases usually require the most text, especially if you have to develop a specific argument in favor of or against the paper. There are several ways to structure your free-text review. You can decide which format you want to use yourself, but I often base my reviews on the CHI review format, which looks like this:.
Examples could be the following:. In all of these cases, you can use the specific field in the review form for comments that go only to the committee and are not divulged to the authors. Bear in mind, however, that sometimes your comments to the committee are not hidden from other reviewers.
Never write anything in the private comments that you would not be willing to stand for if they were accidentally made public. Many paper reviewing systems, particularly for conferences, include mechanisms for internal discussions between reviewers. Sometimes you will be asked by the primary or secondary reviewer to give comments on the paper after reading other reviews.
This is often done in lieu of a physical program committee meeting, where reviewers can otherwise discuss in the real world about aspects of a specific paper even at a physical meeting, only the primary and secondary reviewers tend to be invited. Remember to take this opportunity because it helps the primary reviewers greatly in making a final decision. Avoid the temptation to be inactive, and instead use the discussion phase to give more feedback on the quality of the paper.
It is often very easy to write a review for a bad paper, because you will have a long list of complaints that you can easily put into words. It will not be hard to fill your paragraphs, and your biggest challenge will be to be as polite as possible while still criticizing the work of the authors. However, it is often much more challenging to write a good review for a good paper.
If you feel strongly positive about a paper, the biggest mistake you can ever make is to give a high rating and then write a very short review. It often feels difficult to write a long a positive review, because the paper basically did everything you expected from it, right? There is nothing more to add. However, as a meta-reviewer or program committee member, positive but short reviews are probably the least useful after rude and negative ones, because they basically give you no ammunition on how you can argue for this paper to be accepted.
In other words, it is difficult to justify a paper being accepted if all your reviewers give very short reviews with no details. To put this another way, it is equally important that you give many and good reasons for a paper to be accepted as it is for when you are recommending rejection. A verbose and lucid description of all of the strong points of the paper will help convince the powers that be that you know what you are talking about as a reviewer.
A short review does nobody any favors, especially authors of papers you want to accept. Never forget that. Finally, even good papers have points of improvement.
laicouroro.tk It is easy to fall in to the temptation of merely filling the review body with a long list of weaknesses that should be improved. This work was accepted as a full conference paper. He also presented our work on locomotion in VR during the poster presentation Lugrin et al. Negin Hamzeheinejad was invited to present her ongoing work of her PhD project on gait rehabilitation after using VR and she was actively supporting the conference as a student volunteer Hamzeheinejad Latoschik co-organized the 12th workshop on Software Engineering and Architectures for Realtime Interactive Systems where he summarized the development of this area during an opening talk.
Manchester, UK. Larnaca, Cyprus.
- writing assignment help.
- IEEE International Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction, ICCV .
- christianity peace essay!
- introduce myself essay in mandarin.
- 5 paragraph persuasive essay rubric;
- Research · Stanford HCI Group!
- IEEE International Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction, ICCV ;
Pittsburgh, USA. Valencia, Spain. San Diego, USA. Copenhagen, Denmark. Utrecht, Netherlands. Suzhou, China.
Barcelona, Spain. Daejeon, Korea. Parramatta, Australia. Sydney, Australia. Cagliari, Italy.