Review guideline

The review should be submitted as a plain text file. In addition, you can add a PDF of the reviewed paper with annotations.

A review contains:

  1. Title of the reviewed paper, name of the reviewer, reviewers email
  2. Short summary of the reviewed paper
    • what are the main contributions explained in the paper?
    • The summary shows the author, whether you understood what the most important points are in the paper and shows that you have read the complete paper. So it is not helpful, to just copy from the abstract of the reviewed paper.
  3. Understanding:
    • Could you understand all parts of the paper?
    • If not: explain what parts where not understandable, why you did not understand them, and try to give suggestions to improve the paper.
    • Is the motivation of the paper understandable?
    • Was there something, which you had to look up in a different source to understand the paper?
  4. Other constructive feedback, for example:
    • Are there redundancies in the paper?
    • Are there sections, which could be shortened?
    • Are there places, where you would like to see more details?
    • Are there any sentences, which are hard to read?
  5. Grammar, spelling, wrong references, layout issues, etc. (optional)
    • Grammar and spelling are not the focus on the review. If you want to, you can report problems, which you find during reading.

Additional material

The following links provide some guidelines how the review should be done. Although they are geared more towards paper reviews in a scientific conference/journal setting, many of the reviewing concepts are still applicable in this review task.