PaperReviewProcedure < SPL

__Procedure__

   1. The *discussion leader* (a Ph'D student) chooses a paper to be reviewed (See below for suggestions on choosing papers). The paper needs to be approved by a faculty member (typically the student's supervisor). Depending on the seniority of the student they may not need to have a faculty member approve the paper.
   1. The *discussion leader* (no later than two days before the meeting):
      * Posts a link to the paper on the [[SPLRG][<nop>SPLuRGe wiki]] under the appropriate month.
      * Sends an email message to the SPL mailing list with the link to the paper. 
   1. The *discussion leader* and his/her *co-reviewers* (typically Master's students) prepare their reviews (see below for review format).
   1. *Reviewers* (no later than the morning of the meeting):
      *  Post their reviews on the [[SPLRG][<nop>SPLuRGe wiki]] under the appropriate month.
      *  Send their reviews to the discussion leader.
   1. The *discussion leader* sends a message containing the reviews to the SPL mailing list.
   1. During the <nop>SPLuRGe meeting:
      * The *discussion leader* presents an overview of the paper. Each of the other reviewers will then add their perspectives on what the paper was about. 
      * Each *reviewer* (typically starting with the *discussion leader*) presents one strength and one weakness of the paper, which will then be discussed. 
      * Each *reviewer* poses their best 'discussion stimulating' question from/about the paper. 
      * The paper is opened to general discussion.

__Review Format__

Paper reviews contain five sections:

   1. *Problem* The problem addressed by the paper.
   1. *Contributions* The key contributions put forth by the paper.
   1. *Weaknesses* The key weaknesses of the paper.
   1. *Questions* Things the reviewer did not understand, or ideas that should be discussued further.
   1. *Belief* Why or why not was the author's argument/evidence convincing?

__Choosing a Paper for Review__

Choosing a good paper to be discussed in a reading group is more a matter of experience than process. Having said that, the following are a few guidelines to help with the process while you are gaining the experience:
   1. Choose a paper from one of:
      * [[http://info.acm.org/pubs/contents/proceedings/series/icse/][ICSE]] 
      * [[http://portal.acm.org/browse_dl.cfm?linked=1&part=series&idx=SERIES364&coll=ACM&dl=ACM][FSE]]
      * [[http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=SERIES10702][AOSD]]
      * [[http://portal.acm.org/browse_dl.cfm?linked=1&part=series&idx=SERIES318&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=45571917&CFTOKEN=30058795][OOPSLA]]
      * [[http://www.ecoop.org/conferences.html#proceedings][ECOOP]]
   1. Choose papers that were distinguished papers from a relevant conference.
   1. Be able to answer: "How is this paper relevant to my work and/or the work of other people in the group"?
This topic: SPL > WebHome > SPLRG > PaperReviewProcedure
Topic revision: r4 - 2005-06-16 - JohnAnvik