SIGMORPHON 2008 START Conference Manager    


Back to Sigmorphon 2008 CFP


SIGMORPHON 2008: The Tenth Workshop of the Association for Computational Linguistics' Special Interest Group in Morphology and Phonology

Review Form


Submission #-1: Your Paper Title
Authors: Your Name
Reviewer: Your Reviewer's Name
Secondary Reviewer (if any):


Summary Ranking

Please evaluate the submission according to the criteria below. Scores for numerical categories are ordered from "bad" to "good." That is, a low score represents a negative evaluation, and a high score represents a positive evaluation.

Evaluation Category Enter Your Score
Appropriateness (1-5)

Does this paper fit in SIGMORPHON 2008?

(The focus of SIGMORPHON 2008 is on applying computational techniques to problems in phonetics, phonology, and morphology; see the Call for Papers for more details.)

5 = Appropriate for SIGMORPHON 2008. (most submissions)
4 = Computational linguistics or NLP, though it's not typical SIGMORPHON material.
3 = Possibly relevant to the audience, though it's not quite computational linguistics or NLP.
2 = Only marginally relevant.
1 = Inappropriate.
Clarity (1-5)

For the reasonably well-prepared reader, is it clear what was done and why? Is the paper well-written and well-structured? Does the English or the mathematics need cleaning up? Would the explanation benefit from more examples or pictures?

Is there sufficient detail for an expert to validate the work, i.e., by replicating experiments or filling in theoretical steps?

(Take into account whether any obscurity or minor English errors could be fixed with relatively little effort, or whether the paper requires more work than is likely to be carried out in the 2.5 weeks available.)

5 = Admirably clear.
4 = Understandable by most readers.
3 = Mostly understandable to me with some effort.
2 = Important questions were hard to resolve even with effort.
1 = Much of the paper is confusing.
Originality / Innovativeness (1-5)

How original is the approach? Does this paper break new ground in topic, methodology, or content? How exciting and innovative is the research it describes?

(Note that a paper could score high for originality even if the results did not show a convincing benefit.)

5 = Surprising: Noteworthy new problem, technique, methodology, or insight.
4 = Creative: Relatively few people in our community would have put these ideas together.
3 = Somewhat conventional: A number of people could have come up with this if they thought about it for a while.
2 = Rather boring: Obvious, or a minor improvement on familiar techniques.
1 = Significant portions have actually been done before or done better.
Soundness / Correctness (1-5)

First, is the technical approach sound and well-chosen? Second, can one trust the claims of the paper -- are they supported by proper experiments, proofs, or other argumentation?

5 = The approach is very apt, and the claims are convincingly supported.
4 = Generally solid work, though I have a few suggestions about how to strengthen the technical approach or evaluation.
3 = Fairly reasonable work. The approach is not bad, and at least the main claims are probably correct, but I am not entirely ready to accept them (based on the material in the paper).
2 = Troublesome. There are some ideas worth salvaging here, but the work should really have been done or evaluated differently, or justified better.
1 = Fatally flawed.
Meaningful Comparison (1-5)

Does the author make clear where the problems and methods sit with respect to existing literature? Are the references adequate? Are any experimental results meaningfully compared with the best prior approaches?

5 = Precise and complete comparison with related work. Good job given the space constraints.
4 = Mostly solid bibliography and comparison, but I have some suggestions.
3 = Bibliography and comparison are somewhat helpful, but it could be hard for a reader to determine exactly how this work relates to previous work.
2 = Only partial awareness and understanding of related work, or a flawed empirical comparison.
1 = Little awareness of related work, or lacks necessary empirical comparison.
Thoroughness (1-5)

Does this paper have enough substance, or would it benefit from more ideas or results?

(Note that this question mainly concerns the amount of work; its quality is evaluated in other categories.)

5 = Contains more ideas or results than most publications in this conference; goes the extra mile.
4 = Represents an appropriate amount of work for a publication in this conference. (most submissions)
3 = Leaves open one or two natural questions that should have been pursued within the paper.
2 = Work in progress. There are enough good ideas, but perhaps not enough results yet.
1 = Seems thin. Not enough ideas here for a full-length paper.
Impact of Ideas or Results (1-5)

How significant is the work described? If the ideas are novel, will they also be useful or inspirational? If the results are sound, are they also important?

5 = Will affect the field by altering other people's choice of research topics or basic approach.
4 = Some of the ideas or results will substantially help other people's ongoing research.
3 = Interesting but not too influential. The work will be cited, but mainly for comparison or as a source of minor contributions.
2 = Marginally interesting. May or may not be cited.
1 = Will have no impact on the field.
Impact of Resources (1-5)

In addition to its direct intellectual contributions, does the paper promise to release any new resources, such as an implementation, a toolkit, or new data?

If so, is it clear what will be released and when? If so, will these resources be valuable to others in the form in which they are released? Do they fill an unmet need? Are they at least sufficient to replicate or better understand the research in the paper?

(This question encourages authors to help the field advance, by releasing their systems, data, or tools.)

5 = Enabling: The newly released resources should affect other people's choice of research or development projects to undertake.
4 = Useful: I would recommend the new resources to other researchers or developers for their ongoing work.
3 = Potentially useful: Someone might find the new resources useful for their work.
2 = Documentary: The new resources are useful to study or replicate the reported research, although for other purposes they may have limited interest or limited usability. (this is a positive rating)
1 = No usable resources released. (most submissions)
Recommendation (1-5)

There are many good submissions competing for slots at SIGMORPHON 2008; how important is it to feature this one? Will people learn a lot by reading this paper or seeing it presented?

In deciding on your ultimate recommendation, please think over all your scores above. But remember that no paper is perfect, and remember that we want a conference full of interesting, diverse, and timely work. If a paper has some weaknesses, but you really got a lot out of it, feel free to fight for it. If a paper is solid but you could live without it, let us know that you're ambivalent. Remember also that the author has a couple of weeks to address reviewer comments before the camera-ready deadline.

Should the paper be accepted or rejected?

5 = Exciting: I'd fight to get it accepted
4 = Worthy: I would like to see it accepted
3 = Borderline: I'm ambivalent about this one
2 = Mediocre: I'd rather not see it in the conference
1 = Poor: I'd fight to have it rejected
Reviewer Confidence (1-5)
5 = Positive that my evaluation is correct. I read the paper very carefully and am very familiar with related work.
4 = Quite sure. I tried to check the important points carefully, and checked for uncited prior work. It's unlikely, though conceivable, that I missed something that should affect my ratings.
3 = Pretty sure, but there's a chance I missed something. Although I have a good feel for this area in general, I did not carefully check the paper's details, e.g., math, experimental design, novelty.
2 = Willing to defend evaluation, but it is fairly likely that I missed some details, didn't understand some central points, or can't be sure about the novelty of the work.
1 = Not my area, or paper is very hard to understand. My evaluation is just an educated guess.


Detailed Comments

Please supply detailed comments to back up your rankings. These comments will be forwarded to the authors of the paper. The comments will help the committee decide the outcome of the paper, and will help justify this decision for the authors. Moreover, if the paper is accepted, the comments should guide the authors in making revisions for a final manuscript. Hence, the more detailed you make your comments, the more useful your review will be - both for the committee and for the authors.

Enter comments here:


Confidential Comments for Committee

You may wish to withhold some comments from the authors, and include them solely for the committee's internal use. For example, you may want to express a very strong (negative) opinion on the paper, which might offend the authors in some way. Or, perhaps you wish to write something which would expose your identity to the authors. If you wish to share comments of this nature with the committee, this is the place to put them.

 

This is a test - in the real review form, you would see the submission button below.



  
START Conference Manager (V2.54.5)
Back to Sigmorphon 2008 CFP