The role of a reviewer is to identify excellent papers that the IMASBDcommunity must hear about. It is not to reward authors for their hard work and dedication. As such, the review should tell the program committee which papers are exciting and could have a great impact on the field. A good review expresses an opinion about the paper and backs it up with details on strengths and weaknesses of the paper.
The components of the reviewing form are as follows:
A quick summary of the paper, which can be as short as a few sentences. This part tells the PC what the major contributions are, what the authors did, how they did it, and what the results were. It also helps authors to verify that the reviewer understood their approach and interpretation of the results.The opinion of the reviewer about the major strengths of the paper. A reviewer should write about a novel formulation, demonstration of clinical feasibility, an original way to use data, a novel application, a particularly strong evaluation, or anything else that is a strong aspect of this work.
Provide details, for instance, if a method is novel, explain what aspect is novel and why this is interesting.The opinion of the reviewer about the major weaknesses of the paper. Summarize points briefly here so that the program committee and the authors can understand the reviewer's concerns about particular aspects of the paper. Provide details, for instance, if a method is not novel, provide citations to prior work.The opinion of the reviewer about the clarity of presentation, paper organization and other stylistic aspects of the paper. It is important to know whether the paper is very clear and a pleasure to read, or whether it is hard to understand.
Comment on the reproducibility of the paper. Where possible, we encourage authors to use open data or to make their data and code available for open access by other researchers. We understand that due to certain restrictions, some researchers are not able to release their proprietary dataset and code; therefore, a clear and detailed description of the algorithm, its parameters, and the dataset is highly valuable. Please provide comments about whether the paper provides sufficient details about the models/algorithms, datasets, and evaluation. Please take the authors' answers to the reproducibility checklist into account.Detailed constructive comments should be provided to help the authors to revise a weak paper or to expand into a journal version of a strong paper. Comments should be backed up by detailed arguments. Minor problems, such as grammatical errors, typos, and other problems that can be easily fixed by carefully editing the text of the paper, should also be listed.
Your recommendation whether to accept or reject the paper: Taking into account all points above, should this paper be presented at the conference? Is it an interesting contribution? Is it a significant advance for the field? Is the paper of sufficiently high clinical impact to outweigh a lower degree of methodological innovation? Please remember that a novel algorithm is only one of many ways to contribute. A novel interventional system, an application of existing methods to a new problem and new insights into existing methods are just a few examples. A paper would make a good contribution if you think that others in the community would want to know it. As a guide, note that IMASBDtypically accepts around 40% of submissions.
A justification of your recommendation. What were the major factors in making your assessment? How did you weigh the strengths and weaknesses? Make sure that the reasons for your overall recommendation to accept or reject are clear to the program committee and the authors.Ranking of this paper in your review stack: This information will be taken to calibrate the overall rating. Please try your best to avoid ties.
The expertise of the reviewer. If your expertise is limited to a particular aspect of the paper, this should be brought to the attention of the AC. The review is more likely to be taken seriously if the limitations of the reviewer's understanding are clearly acknowledged.
1. simply summarizing the paper and adding a couple of questions about low-level details in the paper. 2. expressing an opinion without backing it up with specifics. For instance, if a method is novel, explain what aspect is novel and why this is interesting. If the method is not novel, explain why and provide a reference to prior work. 3. being rude. A good review is polite. Just like in a conversation, being rude is typically ineffective if one wants to be heard. 4. asking the authors to substantially expand their paper. The paper should be evaluated as submitted. The conference has no mechanism to ensure that any proposed changes would be carried out. Moreover, the authors are unlikely to have room to add any further derivations, plots, or text. 5. Before submitting a finished report, a wise referee asks, "Would I be embarrassed if this were to appear in print with my name on it?"