1 / 23

Peer Review

Peer Review. CPSC 699. Summary. Refereeing is the foundation of academic word: it promotes equity, diversity, openness, free exchange of ideas, and drives the progress. Lecture plan. What is refereeing Journal and Conference refereeing structure Refereeing: Why referee How to referee

donnan
Download Presentation

Peer Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Peer Review CPSC 699

  2. Summary Refereeing is the foundation of academic word: it promotes equity, diversity, openness, free exchange of ideas, and drives the progress.

  3. Lecture plan What is refereeing Journal and Conference refereeing structure Refereeing: Why referee How to referee Outcomes of the process Summary

  4. Quality Hume emphasized education and experience: men of taste acquire certain abilities that lead to agreement about which authors and artworks are the best. Such people, he felt, eventually will reach consensus, and in doing so, they set a‘standard of taste’ which is universal. These experts can differentiate works of high quality from less good works. Cynthia Freeland, But is it Art, Oxford University Press, 2001. David Hume - wikipedia.org

  5. Refereeing • refereeing: what your peer does in peer review • Saul’s recommended sources: • google parberry forscher referee • J. Boyd recommends to search for • referees guidelines for conference/journal • See also extensive list of links on CPSC 699 web site

  6. Journal organization Editor aka managing editor, editor-in-chief • submit paper to editor • editor assigns to associate editor Associate Editor • assign paper to referees • make decision • review paper • recommend to associate editor referee referee referee

  7. conference organization conference chair • organize conference • submit paper to conference program • assign papers to committee members program chair • make decision program committee member • assign paper to referees • review paper • recommend to program committee referee referee referee

  8. Blind review • blind review • authors do not know identity of referees • avoids pressure on referees • double-blind review • referees do not know identity of authors • eliminates reputation as factor • creates unnecessary complications/extends refereeing time

  9. Why peer review • quality control • allocates scarce space resources to best papers • filter to eliminate bad papers for readers • as a side effect • useful feedback to authors

  10. Author • responsibilities: • write an submit paper • assures that paper meets venue’s requirements

  11. Editor/associate ed • responsibilities: • first quality filter • assign associate editor (if necessary) • choose referees (if necessary) • generalist referee • make decision base on referee reports

  12. Referee • responsibilities: • critical review of paper • justify comments in review • suggest changes • suggest action (accept/reject) • usually three reviews per paper • types • experts • generalists

  13. Why referee • service to community • establish your participation • good way to see new research • Learn • Improve your CV • Downside ?? • more work

  14. How to referee: Things to look for • when refereeing look for • 1. correctness • 2. significance • 3. innovation • 4. interest • 5. replication • re-invention • plagiarism • self-plagiarism • 6. timeliness • 7. quality of writing • clarity • conciseness • grammar andspelling • excessive jargon • unsupported work

  15. Ethics • do unto others • treat others fairly • do not use derogatory language • respect confidentiality • submission to conference or journal is not a public disclosure

  16. Ethics (continued) • are you working on a similar problem • consider turning down request • talk to editor honestly

  17. Self plagiarism • journal papers can be reasonable • expansions of conference papers (Saul) his attitude may be changing • in general • can re-publish if original forum was obscure

  18. Saul’s generic template 1. title, authors (if known), manuscript no. 2. summarize the contribution • not what they did or how • no judgement 3. quality • sound analysis, proofs, equations • are methods valid? • Reasonable interpretation of results • relation to existing work 4. can it be duplicated • sufficient detail for expert to reproduce results

  19. template (continued) 5. writing • clarity • organization • grammar • spelling • figures/tables • style • logic • ESL (suggest improvements) 6. relevance • domain • depth • specialization • all must be appropriate for readers 7. other feedback • typos • missing connections to other work • Constructive suggestions

  20. Outcomes • conference • definitely reject • probably reject • borderline • probably accept • definitely accept • journal • reject • reject and resubmit • major revisions • minor revisions • accept

  21. other feedback • you are usually asked to rate your confidence in a review • extremely confident to • know nothing • it is accepted that referee is expert in general area • can usually submit comments to editor that will not be seen by authors • good place to disclose your concerns/conflicts

  22. Summary • Refereeing is the foundation of academic word: it promotes equity, diversity, openness, free exchange of ideas, and drives the progress.

  23. Sources Web links on refereeing Chapter 1 web site Jeff Boyd presentation on refereeing (with permission)

More Related