Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- public:rem4:rem4-16:reviewing_scientific_papers [2016/10/16 12:39] – created thorisson2
+++ public:rem4:rem4-16:reviewing_scientific_papers [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 |  The peer  | A scientist should be an authority in his/her field -- is there anyone who has a higher authority? Yes, the scientific method, in other words the **scientific** community. To review their work current work scientists enlist the practical embodiment of this community -- their peers.  |
 |  How current scientific work gets evaluated   | Via replication of results -- but first results must be published. Deciding what gets published, and how, is the role of the peer review process.    |
-|   |   |
 \\
@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ===The Peer Review Process===
-|  Step 1  | Scientist does research, writes up results and submits a scientific paper to a selected outlet.   |
+|  Step 0  | Scientist does research, writes up results and submits a scientific paper to a selected outlet.   |
-|  Step 2  | Editor receives submission, decides who should review. The selected review group, typically 3 or more scientists knowledgeable in the field in question, is called the peer review group.   |
+|  Step 1  | Editor or conference chair receives submission, decides who should review. The selected review group, typically 3 or more scientists knowledgeable in the field in question, is called the peer review group.   |
-|  Step 3  | Editor sends paper to peer review group with a deadline for returning their review, plus instructions.  |
+|  Step 2  | Paper sent to peer review group (typically 3 reviewers) with a deadline for returning their review, along with instructions.  |
-|  Step 4  | Editor gets reviews from reviewers.  |
+|  Step 3  | Editor gets reviews back from reviewers.  |
-|  Step 5  | Editor has to decide, based on reviews, whether to (1) accept paper as-is, with no changes (very rare!); (2) accept paper with minor revisions; (3) accept paper with major revisions; (4) reject paper.  |
+|  Step 4  | Editor has to decide, based on reviews, whether to (1) accept paper as-is, with no changes (very rare!); (2) accept paper with minor revisions; (3) accept paper with major revisions; (4) reject paper.  |
+|  Step 5  | Editor sends result of reviews along with his decision for 1, 2, 3 or 4 above.  |
+|  Step 6  | Conclusion 1, great! You're done. Your paper will be published as-is. \\ Conclusion 2: Use the reviews to improve your paper, send back to editor. Editor may request a shortlist of how you improved the paper. Your paper will be published with your changes. \\ Conclusion 3: You will need to do major work to improve the paper (e.g. more experiments or compare more algorithms or systems). Your paper will probably be reviewed by the same 3 reviewers. The editor may ask you for a shortlist of how you addressed the reviewers' concerns.   |
 \\
@@ Line 53: / Line 55: @@
 |  Language quality      | Nothing is as annoying as a good paper that falls flat on bad use of English (which, let's face it, is the language of science, at least until China overpowers us with Mandarin). Be brutal! Do not be nice to badly written papers. NB: There is always room for improvement in this regard.   |
+\\
+\\
+SEE ALSO: http://cadia.ru.is/wiki/public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals
 \\
 \\