Peer Review
The Review Cycle
Authors
Conference/Journal
Reviewers
Purpose of a Review
- Recommendation to editor
- Accept
- Accept w/ Minor Revisions
- Accept w/ Major Revisions or Reject and Resubmit
- Reject
- List of changes and revisions
- Major changes to actual content
- Tweaks to presentation
Not for our class
For our class, additional goal is to learn from work of others
Paper Evaluation Criteria
- Is it Novel?
- Is it Correct? (can you determine if it is?)
- Is it Significant?
- Is it Presented Adequately?
- What did you learn
For the class
"The first criterion should be originality" - Donald Knuth
The Review Report
- Summary (3-6 sentences)
- Evaluation (~3 sentences)
- Recommendation
- Strengths, Weaknesses
- Major comments (max ~5, 1 paragraph each)
- Minor comments (Bullets)
Not for class
Who are reviewers?
- Professors
- Other people with PhDs
- Senior grad students
- You!! (ask your advisor!)
Why review?
- Contributing to the advance of science
- Get to see cutting edge work
- Forced to understand cutting edge work
- It will make you a better writer
A Story
Why Review?
On one occasion Don ripped into a paper with a long report on its failings, and was later told by the author that those constructive comments had changed his life: The author had resolved that from then on he was going to study writing and give a lot of attention to exposition. This nameless individual went on to become a renowned professor at a great (but here equally nameless) university, and an editor of a fine journal.
References
- The Task of the Referee (Smith)
- Hints for Referees (Knuth)
- Mathematical Writing Course Notes (Knuth)
Peer Review
By Zachary Sunberg
