借用這個主題，我下面寫的好像跟這個主題無關
究竟作者群裡面有大頭對投稿有沒有好處
從另外一個地方來看，事實上是很有幫助的
比如說，以Pattern Recognition Letters為例
Review完要填寫一份judgement，如下所示：
1) Type of contribution:
__ Commentary or review
__ New proposal of methodology
__ Major improvement of a known method
__ Minor improvement of a known method
__ New application area
__ Major development of a known application
__ Minor development of a known application
__ None of the above, but acceptable (explain)
__ None of the above, unacceptable (explain)
2) Potential impact:
__ High reference value for wide readership
__ High reference value for limited readership
__ Marginal reference value for wide readership
__ Marginal reference value for limited readership
__ No reference value
3) Overall quality:
__ Excellent __ Good __ Average __ Fair __ Poor
4) Originality:
__ Excellent __ Good __ Average __ Fair __ Poor
__ Cannot determine (explain)
5) Technical correctness:
__ Correct
__ Probably correct, convincing
__ Probably incorrect or unconvincing
__ Incorrect
__ Cannot determine (explain)
6) Experimental evaluation:
__ No such need
__ Thorough and convincing
__ Limited but convincing
__ Unconvincing
__ Cannot determine (explain)
7) Clarity of presentation:
__ Excellent __ Good __ Average __ Fair __ Poor
8) Adequacy of references to literature:
__ Adequate
__ Mostly adequate, with some omissions (explain)
__ Inadequate references (explain)
9) Length:
__ Appropriate
__ Should be extended (explain)
__ Should be shortened (explain)
10) Linguistic quality:
__ Excellent __ Good __ Average __ Fair __ Poor __ Cannot Judge
11) Quality of illustrations:
__ Excellent __ Good __ Average __ Fair __ Poor
12) Keywords:
__ Adequate
__ Inadequate (explain)
Recommendations as to publication (please mark one category):
__ Reject for the reasons given below.
__ Reconsider after a major revision as described below.
__ Accept subject to a minor revision as described below.
__ Accept in its present form.
***************************************************
Confidential (NOT to be forwarded to the authors):
Confidence of review:
__ Highly confident
__ Confident
__ Somewhat confident
__ May need additional review in some areas (explain)
If paper is to be revised:
__ You would prefer seeing the paper again after revision.
__ You do not think it necessary to check the revision yourself.
Additional remarks for editors only:
以 "5) Technical correctness:" 跟 "Confidence of review:"這兩項來說
大部分情況，是很難在短時間內做出正確的評價的
因為沒有辦法短時間複製實驗出來
有時候需要需以作者的背景及相關著作來佐證評斷
在這個部分，有大頭事實上會比較吃香
大頭可性度畢竟比較高(雖然事實不一定是這樣)
另外要提的就是，
上述的judgement並不會出現在作者收到的comment裡
所以有時候，作者看到的並不是審查意見的全貌
舉另外一個例子
我曾看過有一個國科會申請案
兩個審查人，其中一個指出計畫案有一些很嚴重的缺失....
另外一個寫說這個計畫案不錯，有貢獻....
這個申請案後來沒有過，
重點是兩個審查人給的總分只差兩分
所以有時看到的評論意見到不一定全然真實
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.125.88.15