Yes, technical contents are very important, but they are in no way the only focus of a careful reading. You can go a lot further by replacing such vague words with more specific ones: “inelegant”, “inefficient”, “memory-intensive”, “ill-defined”, etc. Do not repeat the Future Work section of the paper. Consult the list of questions in Section 3 if you run out of ideas.Tags: Have Someone Write A Book Report For YouWhat Are Some Ways To Start Off A EssayDrunk Driving EssaysBest Travel Writing EssaysArgument Essay IntroductionLatest Research Papers On Software Quality AssuranceCreative Writing Lesson Plans For First GradePlato Allegory Of The Cave EssayEssay On PrejudiceMost Famous Essays
4 This restriction on the number of critiques is intentional.
Firstly, the restriction forces you to pinpoint the major weaknesses of the paper, rather than to spend efforts debating issues of peripheral importance.
1 Comprehension The first lesson to reading research papers is learning to understand what a paper says. You can be sure that you understand something only when you are capable of explaining it in your own words. Use the questions outlined in Section 2 to help you come up with meaningful critiques.
A common pitfall for a beginner is to focus solely on the technicalities. Do not repeat the Limitations section of the paper. Pick points of disagreement, and launch an intellectual debate with the authors. Do not just say, “I don’t like this point.” Instead, give technical reasons to substantiate your critiques. Avoid generic adjectives such as “bad”, “poor”, “lame”, “stupid”, etc, and their synonyms and antonyms. Propose one to two ways in which the research work can be further developed.
” The four questions listed above make up an archetypical plot structure for every research paper. 3 Synthesis Creativity does not arise from the void.
Consequently, when you read a paper, ask yourself, “What is the plot? Yet, do not let the above comment hinder you from disagreeing with the paper authors in matters of significance.Lastly, guidelines on how to be initiated into the trade of conference and/or journal paper review are given. It is imperative that you use your own words to summarize the paper.Designed to be used in a graduate course setting, this tutorial comes with a suggested marking scheme for grading paper reviews with a comprehension-evaluationsynthesis structure. Failing to adhere to this guideline not only constitutes plagarism, but also demonstrates that you probably do not quite understand the work. Pick two to three points4 you want to argue with the authors5 .For a perspective focusing on theoretical computer science, consult the article by Parberry .After reading these papers, I highly recommend graduate students to find opportunities to practice professional paper reviewing. Ambitious claims are usually easy to make but difficult to substantiate. Are the authors solving artificial problems (aka straw man)? Be very sceptical of work that is so “novel ” that it bears no relation to any existing work, builds upon no existing paradigm, and yet addresses a research problem so significant that it promises to transform the world. When you read a research paper, you should see it as an opportunity for you to come up with new research projects. 2 Evaluation An integral component of scholarship is to be critical of scientific claims. Are the authors simply repeating the state of the art? Are the authors aware of the relation of their work to existing literature 2 ? 1 Alternatively, what makes it a research paper rather than a science fiction? Interacting with the scholarly community through reading reseach papers is one of the most effective ways for generating novel research agendas.It works for me, but it is definitely not the only way to structure a paper review. A very good introduction to the subject can be found in an article by Smith .I outline here an alternative format I learned from a friend of mine. The paper is slanted towards experimental computer science. • Is there an alternative way to substantiate the claim of the authors? What is the methodology adopted to substantiate the claims? • What are some alternative approaches to address the research problem?