Course Information:

• The course on BlackBoard
• Paper Selection Form
• Slides course organisation (.pdf or .pptx)
• Schedule for group A (Arjen) and group E (Elena)

Reviewing

Peer review is a central process in the conduct of science.

The resources below help understand this process, and provide background to writing excellent reviews.

Reviewing criteria

• UAI 2015;
• ICML 2015;
• SIGIR 2017

Why review

IP&M published an encouraging editorial Reviewer merits by Marchionini et al. (.pdf).

How to read a paper

• S. Keshav, How to read a paper (2007), published in ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 37(3):83–84 .pdf; The paper is discussed briefly in a blog post by Charles Sutton.

How to review a paper

• Timothy Roscoe, Writing reviews for systems conferences (2007) .pdf;
• Alan Jay Smith, The task of the referee (1990);
• Nancy R. Gough, Training for Peer Review, Science Signaling 25 Aug 2009: Vol. 2, Issue 85, pp. tr2 DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.285tr2 (.pdf or .pdf);
• Science published A Peer Review How-To, a letter by Robert S. Zucker (.pdf).

How not to review a paper

• Graham Cormode published How NOT to Review a Paper: The tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer .pdf

See also

Finally, you might be interested in the NIPS 2014 consistency experiment (and this blog post) and the WSDM 2017 analysis of single vs. blind reviewing (and this blog post).