Avaliando um trabalho
Leia antes Dando e recebendo feedback, em Estabelecendo uma rotina de pesquisa.
As dicas para avaliação de trabalhos para ICSE 2017 refletem problemas comuns em avaliações. Evite-os! Seguem os principais:
Não terceirize a sua avaliação
“General arguments based on personal feelings, positive or negative, about a research topic, research method, application domain, types of stakeholders, etc., should not be a factor in the decision process.“
“The evaluation of a submission should be respectful and appreciative of the work submitted and report the strengths of a submission as precisely and extensively as possible. At the same time, appreciation for the work described in a submission should not be cause for indulgence. We wish to select submissions by appreciating their strengths while acknowledging their weaknesses; We do not wish to accept submissions by overlooking their weaknesses.“
“Depersonalizing reviews. We ask reviewers to comment on the work, not the authors. This should naturally lead to more constructive reviews. We recommend avoiding the use of the second person (“you”).“
Leia How to constructively review a research paper, que argumenta sobre os riscos de levar muito em consideração aspectos como impacto/relevância e originalidade/inovação. Os principais pontos são os seguintes:
“Be explicit about how you rate the paper on correctness, impact, and novelty (and any other factors such as clarity of the writing). This makes your review much more actionable for the authors: should they address flaws in the work, try harder to convince the world of its importance, or abandon it entirely?“
“Learn to recognize your own biases in assessing impact and novelty, and accept that these assessments might be wrong or subjective. Be open to a discussion with other reviewers that might change your mind. Not every paper needs to maximize all three criteria.“
“Consider accepting papers with important results even if they aren’t highly novel, and conversely, papers that are judged to be innovative even if the potential impact isn’t immediately clear. But don’t reward cleverness for the sake of cleverness; that’s not what novelty is supposed to be about.“
“Above all, be supportive of authors. If you rated a paper low on impact or novelty, do your best to explain why.“
Considere também que pode haver diferenças significativas nos processos de avaliação de diferentes áreas de pesquisa.
