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