Refereeing (note: needs to be updated)

Purpose: quality control
Method: peer review

Referee Organization

refereeing1

Role of a referee

  • advisory - opinion on paper
  • author bears responsibility for correctness of result presentation
  • editor bears responsibility for acceptance/rejection

    • Why referee?

  • enhance reputation (with editors, program committee)
  • expedites processing of your own papers
  • get on editorial board or program committee
  • sometimes get 'previews' to work
  • most importantly: good practice
  • increase of your critical appraisal ability
  • your papers become better
  • unfortenately, refereeing means 'more work'

    • Quality control

  • Correctness
  • of argument/method/algorithm/proof... (is a fix necessary?)
  • Significane
  • rule out obvious/trivial solutions
  • valid problems...
  • significant to area/journal, etc...?
  • Innovation
  • original, creative, novel, inventive
  • not trivial extensions, or combination of old work with no added value
  • Interesting
  • well motivated
  • relevant (when & where)
  • Timeliness
  • of current interest to the community
  • e.g. don't need another paper on unix command line
  • prolem:
  • publication delay
  • pre-exposure (www)
  • Succint
  • message should be
  • clear
  • compelling
  • to the point
  • not
  • hand-waving
  • obscur/hidden behind jargon, etc.
  • Accessible
  • is it appropriate to the audience?
  • specialists & range of generalists
  • something for both
  • readable, good grammar/structure reflects care
  • people do not have the time to read badly written papers
  • Ethics
  • Objectivity
  • judge papers on its own merits
  • remove personal prejudice (e.g. institution, author, nationality, race, power of the author, etc.)
  • if you cannot (e.g. colleague), return the paper
  • Fairness
  • author may use point of view/methodology/arguments different from your own
  • judge from their school of thought
  • Speed
  • fast turnover
  • you are on a critical path!
  • low performance means doubling of time, affects timeliness & delays
  • conferences: deadlines
  • journals: approx. 3 weeks
  • and finally, do not rush either!
  • Professional treatment
  • act in the best interest of the auther & paper
  • if unacceptable, explain why & where, but politely
  • if acceptable, explain how it can be improved
  • specific rather than vague criticism, e.g.
  • 'what' is wrong with the algorithm, rather than 'the algorithm is wrong'
  • what related work is missing
  • key examples of numerous errors
  • Confidentiality
  • cannot circulate papers
  • cannot use/discuss results withour permission
  • Conflict of interest
  • discuss with editor
  • Honesty
  • your expertise, confidence in appraisal, etc.
  • Courtesy
  • constructive criticism
  • non-inflammatory language
  • no put-downs
  • Dilemmas
  • how many papers to submit/referee?
  • 1 paper submitted -> 3 referees (minimum)
  • time to review?
  • to give fair treatment
  • don't rush, the author deserves a fair hearing
  • conference -> journal version?
  • reasonable expansion of conference paper
  • obscurity of conference
  • working on the same problem?
  • honest & open -> consult with the editor
  • case for independent co-discovery