借用这个主题，我下面写的好像跟这个主题无关 究竟作者群里面有大头对投稿有没有好处 从另外一个地方来看，事实上是很有帮助的 比如说，以Pattern Recognition Letters为例 Review完要填写一份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:"这两项来说 大部分情况，是很难在短时间内做出正确的评价的 因为没有办法短时间复制实验出来 有时候需要需以作者的背景及相关着作来佐证评断 在这个部分，有大头事实上会比较吃香 大头可性度毕竟比较高(虽然事实不一定是这样) 另外要提的就是， 上述的judgement并不会出现在作者收到的comment里 所以有时候，作者看到的并不是审查意见的全貌 举另外一个例子 我曾看过有一个国科会申请案 两个审查人，其中一个指出计画案有一些很严重的缺失.... 另外一个写说这个计画案不错，有贡献.... 这个申请案後来没有过， 重点是两个审查人给的总分只差两分 所以有时看到的评论意见到不一定全然真实 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.125.88.15