SENECA PhD Training Review
An important question in the early stages of a research career is "How to get my paper accepted ?". Obviously, there is no failsafe recipe to answer that question, but an important factor is to approach the question from the perspective of the reviewer. Approaching the writing of a paper from a reviewer's perspective thus reformulates the question intoto something more actionable: "How can I persuade a reviewer to champion my paper" ?
During the SENECA PhD training day we will have one lecture on approaching paper writing from a reviewer's perspective. As a preparation for the occasion we have a little home assignment for you.
Review the paper "Formal Methods Application: An Empirical Tale of Software Development" (Ann E. Kelley Sobel and Michael R. Clarkson)
(a) Download the paper from
(b) Supply the review in an on-line form
The one you are reading now
(3) Supply the review no later than
Monday, June 5th 2017 at 12:00 Central European Time
Summary (provide a 4 sentence summary to help the PC-chairs who did *not* read the paper assess its value)
A: Good paper. I will champion it at the PC meeting.
B: OK paper, but I will not champion it.
C: Weak paper, though I will not fight strongly against it.
D: Serious problems. I will argue to reject this paper.
X: I am an expert in the subject area of this paper.
Y: I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert.
Z: My evaluation is that of an informed outsider.
Points in Favour (With all of the above in mind, give a list of things you especially appreciated; telegram style)
Points to Improve (With all of the above in mind, give a list of things you would like to see improved; telegram style.)
Name of the Reviewer
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Terms of Service