1 / 12

The Task of the Referee

Learn about the crucial role of a referee in evaluating research papers for publication and ensuring the quality and significance of the work. Understand what makes a paper publishable and the responsibilities of a good referee. Gain insights into providing constructive feedback and recommendations for authors.

ikes
Download Presentation

The Task of the Referee

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. The Task of the Referee Arnon Rungsawang fenganr@ku.ac.th Massive Information & Knowledge Engineering COmputer and Network SYstem Laboratory Department of Computer Engineering Faculty of Engineering Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.

  2. Referee’s Task • Evaluate in a timely manner a paper for publication in a specific journal or conference proceedings. • Determine whether • The work presented is correct, • The problem studied and the results obtained are new and significant, • The quality of the presentation is satisfactory or can be made so, • What revisions and changes to the paper are necessary and/or desirable.

  3. What is Publishable Paper? • A paper is publishable if it makes a sufficient contribution. • A contribution is • New and interesting research results, • New and insightful synthesis of existing results, • A useful survey of or tutorial on a field, • A combination of above.

  4. Publishable Paper may be… • A paper which merely confirms previously published results by different researcher, using different data, if previously published result is important enough to require confirmation. • The role of the referee is to provide an opinion as to whether the paper makes such a sufficient contribution.

  5. Publishable or not… • Small results which are surprising and might spark new research should be published. • Papers which are mostly repetitions of other papers should not be published. • Papers which have good ideasbadly expressed should not be published, HOWEVER the authors should be encouraged to rewrite them in a better more comprehensive fashion.

  6. Two Major Components of a Referee Report • Recommend acceptance or reject a publication: • Equivocal acceptance should provide with adequate discussion for guiding the editor or program committee. • Reject if the paper does not contain some publishable research, or the referee can suggest another place to publish in case of inappropriate to the discussed forum. • Recommend change or revise: • Suggest change or revision that might permit the paper to be published elsewhere, or after resubmission.

  7. Overly Permissive Referee • Everything will be published. • Poor research is encouraged. • Recognition or honors are given to those who don’t deserve it. • Naïve and inexperienced reader is misled. • Author is misled as to what is publishable. • Disrespect for field is encouraged. • …

  8. Overly Restrictive Referee • Block good research from, or causes it to be delayed in publication. • Waste the time of authors and damages their career. • Perhaps leave journals with nothing to publish, and conferences wit nothing to present. • …

  9. A Good Referee… • Be in a middle of overly permissive and overly restrictive. • Be able to distinguish: • Good from bad work. • Major from minor, from negative contributions to the literature. • A referee who always says YES or always says NO is not helpful.

  10. A Referee Report… • State very briefly his recommendation and reasons for it. • Summarize the point of paper in 1-5 sentences, both for use of the editor or to ensure that the referee actually understand the point of the paper. • Evaluate the goal of the work both with respect to its validity and to its significance. • Evaluate the quality of work (methodology, techniques, accuracy, errors, presentation).

  11. A Referee Report… (continue) • Provide overall recommendation as to publication. • Contain enough discussion and information to justify the recommendation. • If the recommendation is negative, be clear at what point why the paper is rejected. • Equivocal (“maybe”) recommendation is acceptable if the reasons for it are clearly documented.

  12. Questions and Answer fenganr@ku.ac.th

More Related