Fast Access

Document format

We will be using the ACM conference proceedings template on Overleaf. You can create your accounts in the website and share the document with each other and work on collaboratively.

You can also use the local (university-specific) version of Overleaf called sharelatex. They do not have the official ACM template but you can import it yourself from GitHub repository.

You can install latex to your own computer (each), download the GitHub template page, and use some sort of GitHub backhand to collaborate. I would not recommend this option, especially to beginners, hence using local latex and being able to compile documents is significantly hard.

Literature review document

The content of the literature review document should be at least ~1 page in writing. You can use images and tables but do not extend 2 pages in total. References are not included in this limit, your pdf file can be 8 pages long with 6 pages of references if you are able to do that and it is still OK!

The minimum page limit increases by 0.5 pages per member: 2 pages minimum for 3 people group.

Presentation

Coming soon.

Final report document

The content of the final report should be at least ~6 pages in writing. You can use images and tables. References are not included in this limit also not included.

The minimum page limit increases by 2 pages per member: 10 pages for 3 people group.

Contents

literature review document

The literature review template here (Thank you Bedirhan!) can guide you on what to add and how to format your document. Key differences between that document and yours would be:

The literature review document is the basis for your final report and your first scientific document. Therefore it focuses more on what you find and how you present it in terms of shape. Preparing this document should get you used to scientific writing tools and style. It should also show that you are on a good track in terms of grounding your topic and finding supporting papers. The more advanced requirements such as coherence, storytelling, and structure have more focus (more grade points) in the final report. Therefore you could see different grades for the same descriptions in their grading schemes.

Throughout the explanations, you will see mentions such as “significantly boost our perception of your work” or “is optional but quite useful” without significant numbers attached to them. Evaluation of your submissions will be around the grading schemes provided but inclusion of such parts might complete our perception of some elements which would boost your grade if done well.

Ex. Reviewer (us) of your document has questions about the content quality where topics are not represented clearly enough. “Intentional exclusions” of certain research directions found and provided by the authors (you) would show their understanding of the topic is strong but there are slight problems in expressing. Result: “Content quality” 6 pt -> 10 pt.

Presentation

Can be derived from the grading scheme. Can be updated with specifics.

Peer review document

Coming soon.

Final report document

Can be derived from the grading scheme. Can be updated with specifics.

Grading scheme

Grading and requirements are slightly different in the project route. Please refer to your supervisor for details if you took this option.

Literature Review (20/100)

(2 pt) Language and formal aspects

(9 pt) Scientific aspects

(9 pt) Argumentative aspects

Peer Review (10/100) (Individual)

Coming soon.

Presentation (25/100)

Final Report (40/100)

(5 pt) Language and formal aspects

(14pt) Scientific aspects

(21pt) Argumentative aspects

Participation (5/100) (Individual)

Preparing and asking at least 2 questions for other presentations in their Q/A sessions. All activities such as emails with supervisors, and being active in Moodle discussions.