Search
mlsplogo MLSP2013
IEEE International Workshop on
Machine Learning for Signal Processing

September 22-25, 2013  Southampton, United Kingdom

Paper evaluation process and criteria

The evaluation process in short

Each paper will be evaluated by three independent experts who do not have any conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions. The reviewers are going to indicate their familiarity with the paper’s subject, evaluated the paper along four evaluation criteria and provide comments for the authors. After the individual review a consensus score and ranking is done by the program chairs. They also suggest an acceptance threshold based on the overall consensus score. They carefully examine all aspects of the papers at the borderline, and consider the reviewers comments of high ranked papers. Finally they produce a list of accepted papers.

Reviewer’s familiarity with the paper's subject

The familiarity is scored as:

Evaluation Criteria

A quality paper is defined as a paper with high scores along the following criteria. The criteria reflect independent aspects of the paper's quality are a hence are also scored independently. Each criterion has an acceptance threshold and extended description of the issues to be evaluated. All marks indicated by green color are above the threshold.

The interpretattion of the scores are:

Relevance to conference call and to which degree the paper is a timely contribution

Score:
Excellent, very good, good, fair, poor
Interpretation:
Is the paper within the scope of the workshop. Are the results important and timely?

Scientific/technical originality and potential impact

Score:
Excellent, very good, good, fair, poor
Interpretation:
Are the problems or approaches new? Where possible, reviewers should identify submissions that are very similar (or identical) to versions that have been previously published. Is this a novel combination of familiar techniques? Is it clear how this work differs from previous contributions? Are other people (practitioners, researchers or commercial sector) likely to use these ideas or build on them? Are the results likely to have an impact on the research community or commercial sector?

Scientific/technical content and advances beyond the state-of-the-art

Score:
Excellent, very good, good, fair, poor
Interpretation:
Is the paper technically sound? Is related work adequately referenced? Are claims well-supported by theoretical analysis or experimental results? Is this a complete piece of work, or merely a position paper? Are the authors careful (and honest) about evaluating both the strengths and weaknesses of the work. Does the paper address a difficult problem in a better way than previous research? Does it advance the state of the art in a demonstrable way? Does it provide unique data, unique conclusions on existing data, or a unique theoretical or pragmatic approach?

Quality and clarity of the presentation

Score:
Excellent, very good, good, fair, poor
Interpretation:
Is the paper technically sound? Are claims well-supported by theoretical analysis or experimental results? Is this a complete piece of work, or merely a position paper? Are the authors careful (and honest) about evaluating both the strengths and weaknesses of the work.

Is the paper clearly written? Is it well-organized? Does it adequately inform the reader? (A superbly written paper provides enough information for the expert reader to reproduce its results.)

Comments for the Authors

Interpretation:
Provide an overall summary and detailed comments related to every evaluation criterium. If appropriate, make suggestions to improve the work . Please mak sure that high marks are reflected by positive comments, and low marks by negative comments. Avoid offending comments and anything which could reveal your identity.
Powered by CONWIZ, © Copyright 2013. Page maintained by Jan Larsen (Email)