Quick access:
- GitHub repository for ACM
- ACM template on Overleaf
- ShareLaTeX (Overleaf alternative)
- Literature Review Description (READ RELATED PART BELOW!)
- DAIMPL home page for general writing and presentation advice (Sections 4.2–4.4)
Document Contents and Format
For the reports, we will be using the ACM conference proceedings template on Overleaf. You can create your accounts on the website and share the document with each other and work on it collaboratively.
You can also use the (university-hosted) 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.
Application
To apply for this seminar, please write a short application letter and submit it via Moodle. If you are applying as a group of up to three members, combine all your applications in one document and upload it only once. The document should not exceed 1 page per person (2 pages for two people, etc.). There are no other formal requirements.
Content of the application:
- Whether you are applying alone or as a group, including your (and your group members) first and last name(s). Note that we may join solo and group applicants to form full-sized groups. However, we won’t split existing groups.
- Something about you (for each group member): Your personal motivation for participating in the seminar and your prior experience (lectures, projects, etc.). You can also include your department, the semester you are in, and anything else that might be of interest. You don’t need to explain your specific choice of papers (but you are free to do so if you want).
- Exactly three seed papers (no matter if from the same or different categories) you would like to work on and/or a proposal for a topic you found yourself that fits the domain of this course. Note that your paper selection serves to give us an idea about what you are interested in; we may also assign you a different seed paper if we think it matches your interests.
Literature Review Document
The literature review is the basis for your final report and your first scientific document. The goal is that by preparing it, you become familiar with your seed paper and the broader research area it belongs to. It should also get you used to scientific writing tools and style. Therefore, grading focuses more on what you found and how you present it. We want you to show that you are on a good track in terms of grounding your topic and finding supporting papers. The more advanced requirements such as structure, coherence, and storytelling have more focus (more grading points) in the final report.
Take a look at this template to get an idea of the purpose, structure, and contents of a literature review. Note however that the literature reviews in this seminar are quite short, and thus you don’t need to cover all the aspects mentioned in the template (and obviously you don’t have to justify a research proposal). What we want to see is (1) an introduction that defines your general topic and it’s scope, (2) a main part with short summaries of the seed paper and the related papers you found, and (3) a short conclusion.
The page limit for the literature review is 1 page in writing, plus 0.5 pages per additional group member. Try to get close to the limit, but do not exceed it. References are not included in this limit. Include your seed paper and at least one closely related paper for each group member.
- 1 person: 1 page + references (seed + 1 related)
- 2 persons: 1.5 pages + references (seed + 2 related)
- 3 persons: 2 pages + references (seed + 3 related)
Peer Review Document
The peer review document is free-form and should contain answers to the predetermined questions given below. The goal of this exercise is
- to expand your knowledge of the domain,
- to get inspiration from your peers’ works for your work, and
- to help your peers with their work in every aspect (see final report grading scheme).
Our review process roughly simulates that of an academic conference. At a conference, submitted papers are peer-reviewed because (a) the conference’s program committee wants to know if the paper is relevant for the conference and meets their quality standards, and (b) the authors of the paper want to understand why the paper was accepted/rejected and get feedback on how to improve their paper.
If you want to learn more about the entire academic reviewing process, you can read this recent document. Note, however, that this document is targeted at full conference papers, including the process called rebuttal, which we will not employ. We adapted the process to fit the needs of this seminar. Everything relevant for you is described in the following. Read the explanations carefully and fill out the questionnaire for the report you are reviewing. Unlike a real conference, this process is not double anonymous.
Questions to be Answered
Summary
Summarize the report. Explain the topic, related papers, key ideas, and research directions presented and discussed in the report.
One or two paragraphs. Assume that the program committee has not read the report and only relies on your summary to grasp what the report is about. This is also to show the authors that you understood what they wanted to say.
Strengths
Consider the significance of key ideas expressed, the writing quality, etc. What are the strong aspects of the document? Have the authors captured important directions around the topic and written coherent text?
Weaknesses
Consider the significance of key ideas expressed, the writing quality, etc. What are the weak aspects of the document? Have the authors clearly described the topic and the papers? Does the introduction paint a clear picture? Are there any missing points or research directions that should have been captured but are missing?
Short bullet lists are not enough; please clearly describe or cite papers you think are important but are not covered. Be constructive so the authors will be able to address your criticisms. Don’t be mean, and only critique things that you reasonably believe students are capable of doing in the time allotted for this seminar.
Rating
Based on your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses, give your overall rating of the report. If this seminar were a conference, would you accept this report and publish it here? Select from the following options and explain what the most important factors for your decision are.
- Strong Accept: Nothing needs to be changed, i.e., the report is already nearly perfect.
- Weak Accept: There are a few minor things that you would expect the report to change before the final submission.
- Borderline: There are a few things that you would expect the report to change, and depending on the final state of the submission, your decision might change.
- Weak Reject: There are several things that need to be changed for the report to be considered for acceptance.
- Strong Reject: The report is not acceptable in its current form. Some major rework and improvements are needed first.
Don’t worry, this rating will not directly influence the authors’ grade. On the contrary, constructive criticism can help the authors improve their reports and therefore their grades. The supervisors will make their own judgment when grading the report.
Confidence
Declare how sure you are about your assessment using the options below. Also, state in your own words how well you understood the content of the report and how familiar you are with the general field.
- Very Confident: You have sufficient knowledge to understand what the report is about and rate it with certainty.
- Somewhat Confident: You feel like you understood most of the report despite not being very familiar with the field.
- Not Confident: The field is mostly new to you. You did not understand large parts.
Additional Comments
Provide a list of detailed feedback for the report to help the authors improve it. Refer to specific paragraphs, sentences, line numbers (if available), and figures. Be constructive, i.e., help the authors understand what the issue is and what the solution could be. This includes:
- Typos and grammar mistakes
- Figures with poor readability
- Sentences and paragraphs that are hard to understand
- Suboptimal structure or flow
- Stylistic issues
- Etc.
Final Report Document
For your final report, you will build on what you learned during your literature research for a deeper discussion of your topic. In addition to your existing review of the literature, the report should place greater emphasis on the broader context, offer critical reflections on the selected papers and the field as a whole, and include your own ideas for addressing current challenges and advancing the state of the art. You have a lot of creative freedom here, but make sure to tell a clear and engaging story that ties your chosen papers together in a meaningful way.
We recommend using your literature review as the starting point and expanding from there. It’s totally fine to add or swap out papers if you’ve come across new ones that fit better. You can also structure the report however it works best for you, but generally, it should include:
- Introduction: clearly motivate and contextualize your topic.
- Main Body: one or more sections where you go into detail, discuss key ideas, and share your thoughts.
- Conclusion: summarize your findings and include your ideas for future work.
The page limit for the final report is 6 pages in writing, plus 2 pages per additional group member. Try to get close to the limit, but do not exceed it. For the draft submission, it is okay if you haven’t reached the target length yet. You can use images and tables, but they also count towards the page limit. References and appendices are not included in this limit.
- 1 person: 6 pages + references (+ appendices)
- 2 persons: 8 pages + references (+ appendices)
- 3 persons: 10 pages + references (+ appendices)
Presentation
The content of the presentation can be derived from the grading scheme below.
There are no formal requirements for your slides. You can use any template you like. Presentation times (make sure not to exceed them!):
- 1 person: 6 minutes
- 2 persons: 8 minutes
- 3 persons: 10 minutes
Grading Scheme
We score your submissions to determine your final grade. Below you can find how different aspects are weighted relative to each other.
Literature Review (20/100)
(2 pt) Language and formal aspects
- Overall impression (structure, clarity, typeface)
- Language (spelling, grammar, punctuation)
- Expressiveness (comprehensibility, sentence structure, stylistic)
(9 pt) Scientific aspects
- (4 pt) Introduction (clear motivation and elaboration of the problem)
- (5 pt) Scientific style (usage of citations, selection of related work, definition of technical terms)
(9 pt) Argumentative aspects
- (5 pt) Content quality (factual correctness, topic understanding)
- (4 pt) Sound argument structure in supporting/critiquing the paper and related work
Peer Review (10/100) (individual)
These are evaluated on an OK/NOT OK level. A peer review is deemed OK if you have read and understood your peer’s report and provided appropriate, specific, and helpful feedback.
Final Report (40/100)
(5 pt) Language and formal aspects
- Overall impression (structure, clarity, typeface)
- Language (spelling, grammar, punctuation)
- Expressiveness (comprehensibility, sentence structure, stylistic)
(14pt) Scientific aspects
- (4 pt) Introduction (clear motivation and elaboration of the problem)
- (5 pt) Scientific structure (conciseness of headings, clear progression of sections)
- (5 pt) Scientific style (usage of citations, selection of related work, definition of technical terms)
(21pt) Argumentative aspects
- (9 pt) Content quality (factual correctness, topic understanding)
- (9 pt) Sound argument structure in supporting/critiquing the papers and related works
- (3 pt) Future work/inclusion of own ideas
Presentation (25/100)
- (2 pt) Submitting the slides on time
- (5 pt) Content: motivation, hypothesis, related work, methods, evaluation
- (5 pt) Covering related work papers (minimum number depends on group size; see Literature Review)
- (3 pt) Time management
- (5 pt) Demonstrating fluent knowledge of the subject material
- (5 pt) Answering audience questions
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.