Wednesday, April 13, 2005

SCI reviews

The paper from a previous post was accepted to SCI inspite of having no reviews. Since SCI reviewers are presumably flooded with submissions and are clearly overwhelmed, maybe the following review might help them. This is an actual complete review for a real conference (minus the scores): its immense value lies in its chameleon-like ability to "fit" as a review for any paper you might submit ! I offer this to the community as a token of goodwill on the eve of the Tamil New Year:
-- Comments to the author(s):
The paper is technically poor and also the results.
The authors did not refer appropriately the past work.

The author addressed the topic in irrelevant way.

The paper is not clearly written.

No technical or engineering contribution.

-- Summary:
The paper does not describe the problems and the
solutions synthetically and the technical options are
badly explained. The authors must follow common rules
for writing articles in the domain.

1 comment:

  1. From
    I didn't get any silly review this year, but the year is young, I'm sure I'll get a crappy review like this by the end of the year. [...]


Disqus for The Geomblog