Difference: PaperReviewProcedure (1 vs. 9)

1. Reviewers (no later 24 hours before the meeting):

1. The discussion leader (no later than three working days before the meeting):

• • The discussion leader presents an overview of the paper.

• • • Strengths are put on the whiteboard

1. Can a good discussion be generated by this paper because either the topic is of interest to others in the group or you have some specific questions about the topic that you would like to bounce off the group?

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. During the 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.

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:
   • ICSE
   • FSE
   • AOSD
   • OOPSLA
   • ECOOP
2. Choose papers that were distinguished papers from a relevant conference.
3. Be able to answer: "How is this paper relevant to my work and/or the work of other people in the group"?

1. The discussion leader (a Ph'D student) chooses a paper to be reviewed. Papers are typically drawn from ICSE, FSE, OOPSLA, ECOOP, or AOSD. 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.
2. The discussion leader (no later than two days before the meeting):
   • Posts a link to the paper on the SPLuRGe wiki under the appropriate month.
   • Sends an email message to the SPL mailing list with the link to the paper.
3. The discussion leader and his/her co-reviewers (typically Master's students) prepare their reviews (see below for review format).
4. Reviewers (no later than the morning of the meeting):
   • Post their reviews on the SPLuRGe wiki under the appropriate month.
   • Send their reviews to the discussion leader.
5. The discussion leader sends a message containing the reviews to the SPL mailing list.
6. During the SPLuRGe meeting, each reviewer presents their review starting with the discussion leader. No other questions or comments are made until all the reviewers have presented their review.
7. The paper is then opened to discussion (with the reviewer's questions taking precedence).

1. The discussion leader posts a link to the paper on the SPLuRGe wiki under the appropriate month. This must be done no later than two days before the meeting.

1. Reviewers post their reviews on the SPLuRGe wiki under the appropriate month.
2. During the SPLuRGe meeting, each reviewer presents their review starting with the discussion leader. No other questions or comments are made until all the reviewers have presented their review.

The paper reviews for SPLuRGe serve a number of purposes:

1. Increasing the awareness of group members of current research in the area of software engineering.
2. Providing experience in preparing paper reviews for conferences/journals/etc.

Procedure

The following procedure was established so as to best meet the experience providing objective:

1. The discussion leader (a Ph'D student) chooses a paper to be reviewed. Papers are typically drawn from ICSE, FSE, OOPSLA, ECOOP, or AOSD. 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.
2. The discussion leader sends a link to paper to the reading group mailing list.
3. The discussion leader and his/her co-reviewers (typically Master's students) prepare their reviews (see below for review format).
4. Co-reviewer's send their reviews to the discussion leader before/on the morning of the scheduled SPLuRGe meeting.
5. The discussion leader sends the reviews to the mailing list.
6. During the SPLuRGe meeting, each reviewer presents their review starting with the discussion leader. No other questions or comments are made until all the reviewers have spoken.
7. The paper is then opened to discussion.

Review Format

Paper reviews contain four sections:

1. Problem The problem addressed by the paper.
2. Contributions The key contributions put forth by the paper.
3. Weaknesses The key weaknesses of the paper.
4. Questions Things the reviewer did not understand, or ideas that should be discussued further.

-- Main.janvik - 06 Jun 2005