|
         
Review Criteria
To
reflect upon feedback from previous years we will advice
reviewers to extend the constructive feedback given
within each paper review, in accordance with the IEEE
conference guidelines. We aim at a fair, objective and
transparent review process. To increase transparency for
both reviewers and authors and to enhance the quality of
submissions, please find the review criteria that serve
as guidelines for reviewers and authors alike published
below.
Papers will be evaluated for relevance to DMIN,
originality, significance, information content, clarity,
and soundness on an international level. Each aspect
will be evaluated on a scale of 1 (bad - reject) to 10
(excellent - accept) or 10%-100%. Papers need to achieve
at least 50% overall score to be accepted without
mandatory revisions. Each paper will be refereed by at
least two researchers in the topical area. All reviews
will be considered for the acceptance / rejection
decision. Each reviewer will indicate their expertise as
an indicator for confidence in a particular topic area
and hence review. The camera-ready papers will be
reviewed by one person.
We
particularly encourage submissions of industrial
applications and case studies from practitioners. To
reflect the requirements of an application or project
centric case study presentation, these will be subject
to different review criteria. In particular, they will
not be evaluated using predominantly theoretical
research criteria of originality etc., but will take
general interest and presentation stronger into
consideration. The camera-ready papers will be reviewed
by one person.
Instructions used in the
review process
|
Relevance
|
Is
the topic of the paper relevant to the scope of
DMIN’10
and its participants? (or related conferences of
WORLDCOMP such as ICAI etc) Does it show the
potential to stimulate interactive discussion? |
|
Originality |
How
novel and innovative is the paper? A paper
presenting methods or application domains not
frequently discussed will receive a high mark.
This also takes into consideration whether the
topic has been published in similar form before.
If the paper contains mostly known material,
i.e. established methods and well understood
application domains, it is not considered very
original. Empirical case studies of a particular
application domain are often highly original,
but may have only limited significance to the
field. |
|
Significance
|
Does
the paper make a valuable contribution to the
theory or the practice of data mining? A high
significance indicates a high influence of this
research on following publications in the field
or applications, implications for practices,
policies and future research etc. It represents
an indicator of the importance of the findings,
regardless of their degree of originality. |
|
Content
|
What
is the information content of the paper? Does
the paper allow non-experts in the field to
comprehend its research objective? DMIN as part
of WOLRDCOMP is inherently interdisciplinary.
Therefore a balanced literature review of
relevant aspects, sufficient description of the
application domain, methods and established best
practices will be considered as good information
content. |
|
Soundness
|
Is
the paper technically correct (considering its
submission category)? What is the technical
quality?
For
research papers:
Quality of literature review and statement of
research goals. Appropriate use of the most
relevant references to indicates orientation
within the field. Appropriately chosen and
documented methods, logical presentation and
analysis of results, findings, inferences and
conclusions. Were all technical and
technological aspects of the experiments well
documented? (reliability) Were results compared
to established benchmark practices, methods
etc.? Were the results evaluated taking care of
established standard procedures (validity)?
For
application papers:
Creativity, leadership and excellence in
professional practice, demonstrated in teaching,
staff development, program or institutional
development, educational media or services
developments, or learning skills services. |
|
Clarity
|
Is
the paper well presented and organised? A well
presented paper enhances the understanding of
the presented content also to non experts in the
field. It often shows clear and logical
presentation, appropriate style, the standard of
English, freedom from errors, ease of reading,
correct grammar and spelling, appropriate
abstract, adequate use of graphical materials
and tables to support ideas & findings,
conformance with DMIN specifications for
referencing, length and format details. DMIN is
a highly international conference, so English
quality may be substandard. Please indicate
mandatory revisions and the need for corrections
through a native English speaker, if the content
of the paper is still comprehensible. Indicate
it if the level of English prohibits an
understanding of the thoughts presented. |
|
Overall rating |
All
aspects will be evaluated and combined to an
overall rating, providing a suggestion for
acceptance or rejection of the paper.
-
Strong Accept
(unconditional acceptance is & recommend for best
paper)
-
Accept
(unconditional acceptance as is)
-
Weak Accept (minor revisions & resubmit to be
accepted)
-
Neutral (revise & resubmit to be
accepted)
-
Weak Reject (mandatory revisions to be
accepted, otherwise reject)
-
Reject (significant revisions required,
not feasible within given time, rejection)
-
Strong Reject (unconditional rejection, no
revisions possible to present paper in DMIN)
|
The individual aspects are
not all of the same importance and may be weighted to
provide a final score.
|
Reviewer
expertise & confidence |
The
combined overall ranking will be weighted with
each reviewers expertise in the area. A
reviewer’s expertise for a topic indicates how
familiar he is with current research,
publications, best practices and applications in
the field. Is he familiar with the references?
Reviewers with a high confidence will be able to
evaluate a paper more accurate then a reviewer
with little expertise in the field.
|
The score may be weighted
by reviewer expertise in comparison to the other
reviews.
|
Detailed comments
|
Try
to provide constructive criticism that allows
feedback on what to change for a resubmission or
even future submission to other conferences. No
arrogance even for abysmal papers, very bad
English language etc. You may not need to
comment on all aspects. Think of a student
learning to ski – just indicate the next steps
to alleviate the paper to a higher level. Please
indicate spelling mistakes and inconsistencies
in equations if there are not too many.
In
your comments, please pay particular attention
to
-
the suitability of the title & adequacy of
the abstract
-
tables & illustrations regarding readability
-
length &
formatting of the paper
-
conclusions
-
references
-
plagiarism
|
Conference Management System - Review Instructions (pdf)
Conference Management System - Instruction for Programme
Committee Members (inviting reviewers, assigning papers
(pdf)
|
  
|
