Quick access:

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:

Literature Review Document

The literature review template here 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. You could therefore 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.

Example: 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.

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. You can use images and tables, but they also count towards the page limit. References are not included in this limit.

Peer Review Document

A peer-review document is free-form and should contain answers to the predetermined questions given below. The focus of this exercise is:

Here is a very recent document for peer-reviewing that you can read and learn about the entire reviewing process. This document is designed to describe how to review full conference papers, including the process called rebuttal which we will not employ. The documents you will review are rather short, therefore your approach will be different from a full review. Read the explanations carefully and fill out the questionnaire for your review.

The review process roughly simulates an academic conference. You write a review of the papers addressed at the conference’s program committee and the authors of the paper. The program committee wants to understand if the paper is interesting for the conference and has good quality. The authors want feedback to improve their paper but also expect an explanation of why the paper is accepted/rejected.

Questions to be answered:

Q1: Please explain the topic (core paper and supporting papers). Explain key ideas, and research directions that are depicted. E1: One or two paragraphs. Assume that the program committee has not read the paper, so only relies on the summary to grasp what the paper is about. This is also to show the authors that you understood what they wanted to say.

Q2: Please consider the significance of key ideas expressed, writing quality, etc. Have authors captured important directions around the topic and written coherent text? E2: –

Q3: Please consider the significance of key ideas expressed, 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 missing?  E3: Short bullet lists are not enough, please clearly describe or cite papers you think were important but do not exist.

Q4: Please give a general rating to the entire document. If you think it is an exemplary work, select Strong Accept or Borderline where the document is hardly acceptable etc. E4: This should follow from your assessment above.

Don’t worry, the student’s assessment will not directly influence the grade. On the contrary, constructive criticism can help the authors to improve their papers and therefore their grades. We will make our own judgment, and the final paper will have a bigger impact on the grade than the draft. (But also don’t be mean, think about how you would feel when receiving such a review from one of the other students. Only critique on things that you reasonably believe students are capable of doing in the time allotted to this seminar.)

Q5: How sure are you about your evaluation? Have you done your background research and carefully evaluated the document, or the field is significantly unknown to you? E5: Use confidence to declare whether you have sufficient knowledge to understand what the paper is about.

Q6: What are the most important factors for your rating? Please ground your grade with the listed strengths and weaknesses. E6: –

Q7: Please include comments that are useful for the authors. E7: Provide a list of detailed feedback for the paper. Refer to specific paragraphs, sentences (line numbers if included), and figures. This includes:

These suggestions are for the authors to improve their paper so be constructive, if you did not like something try to explain why as best as you can to help the authors understand your viewpoint.

Final Report Document

The content of the final report document can be derived from the grading scheme below.

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. You can use images and tables, but they also count towards the page limit. References and appendices are not included in this limit.

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!):

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)

These documents will be evaluated at OK/NOT OK level and it is not easy to create a breakdown since it is significantly related to the paper you are reacting to as much as the quality of what you have written.

What is expected is that mainly

Things you can write:

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.