The peer review part of the seminar is next. On the materials page you will find the link to the Review Assignment document where you will see a list of the seminar papers that were assigned to you, and a link to download them. The deadline to submit your reviews is 28.01.22. Note that the the PDF file for the "Instance-level explanations" paper is potentially corrupted and may need to be fixed. The author should contact me to resolve the issue. We will upload a fixed file as soon as possible. If you notice other issues with the submissions or the assignments don't hesitate to get in touch.
- Did the author give a good overview of the field?
- Do you feel like you get the main ideas now?
- Do you understand the methods?
- Did they make every sentence count or did they just waste your time with empty babbling?
- Do you know which methods seem promising and which ones were just a sham?
- Do you know what the current challenges in the field are, what needs to be overcome for the next big thing? Do you maybe even have an idea of how this could be done?
- Clarity: Is the submission clearly written? Is it well organized? If not, please make constructive suggestions for improving its clarity. Does it adequately inform the reader?
- Literature: Is the related literature appropriately discussed? If not, be specific about what is missing. Note that oftentimes it is a question of judgement of whether a result should be mentioned due to page limits. The must-mention results should be directly relevant to the topic of the paper.
- Soundness: A paper ideally makes claims, which should be well supported, either by theoretical arguments, by experimental results, or by appropriate references. Either say, the paper is sound, or list the problems. Any problem listed needs a justification. Do not just say that something is incorrect, include an explanation of why you think it is incorrect.
- Miscellaneous minor issues: List any typos, grammar, and other issues which you view as minor but should be addressed in the final version of the paper.
- 1. Outstanding paper: it deserves the best paper award
- 2. Very good paper: there are only a few minor flaws
- 3. Borderline paper: but has merits that outweigh flaws
- 4. Borderline paper: but the flaws may outweigh the merits
- 5. Below the standard: there are multiple major flaws
- 6. Unacceptable: there are many wrong or misleading claims
- 5. You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.
- 4. You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission.
- 3. You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
- 2. You are willing to defend your assessment, but it is quite likely that you did not understand central parts of the submission. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
- 1. Your assessment is an educated guess. Math/other details were not carefully checked.
Good luck with you reviews!