There are many articles around discussing what are the elements of a good research. During my Masters, I had the chance to be a guest reviewer and reviewer for some of SIGMM (SIG Multimedia) -based conferences and journals, such as ACM/Springer Multimedia Systems Journal, Springer's Journal of Real-Time Image Processing, and ACM Multimedia ’13, ACM/IEEE NetGames ’12, and ACM MoVid ’13 conferences. What I’ve been doing so far to do a paper review, was reviewing and commenting on the followings:
*1 paragraph summarizing what is the problem and how did the authors solve it.
* Does the abstract and introduction clearly motivate the reader about the problem, and does the introduction clearly mention what the authors' contribution is, and why it is a novel and important contribution?
* Have "related work" been presented and analyzed sufficiently? Are there enough new (2008 and newer) related work considered? And are the authors saying why their system is better than this related work?!
* Does the technical proposal (design) seem feasible? Any weaknesses?
* Is there good performance evaluation? And have the authors compared their approach against others?
* Final decision! So I needed to decide if the paper (for journals) should be A) accepted as is (which we know this happens rarely!) B) be reviewed again after the authors do major changes C) be reviewed again after the authors do minor changes D) Rejected?
However, for conferences, probably if there is no chance for rebuttal, the paper can have strong/weak accept/reject.
I’m not sure if my review methodology is good enough though!
This summary of a review process seems very good to me Mohammad... I have reviewed a number of papers for publication (in various conference proceedings, journals, etc). I'm also very interested in Systems Philosophy (e.g. Laszlo 1972, etc). This method seems solid to me.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism