http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp • ACM DL: http://dl.acm.org • Good: gives you access to lots of literature, easy keyword search, ranks papers by citations (may be good or bad) • Bad: hard to ﬁnd something useful if you don’t know yet what you are looking for, much crap can be found, tends to prefer older sources
you use to search (and re- execute your search periodically) • Have a combination of generic and speciﬁc keywords • When you read papers, update your keyword list with the terminology used in the paper • Don’t assume that different authors use the same terms for the same concepts
and journals • Good index for CS: http://dblp.uni-trier.de • Again: build up an index of relevant venues as you read • Check where papers you already found have been published • Good: does not overwhelm you so much, more quality control, newer literature, more “explorative” (easier to ﬁnd something you didn’t think of so far) • Bad: more cumbersome, you need to know what the relevant venues are
conference is good or bad is a science in itself • There are a few sanity checks: • Check whether it’s indexed by DBLP (most good venues are) • Check the CORE ranking (or other rankings) • Conferences: http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-ranks/ • Journals: http://portal.core.edu.au/jnl-ranks/ • Google the acceptance rate (< 25% is quite competitive) • All of those are only rough (biblio-)metrics. Trust your gut!
the references of the papers you already read • Backwards — just look over the references of the paper • Forwards — use Google Scholar’s cited by feature • Good: comprehensive and low-effort way to observe a body of literature • Bad: easy to get stuck in a speciﬁc community; won’t ﬁnd the lesser-known “pearls”
behind a paywall • Publications behind a paywall can usually be accessed freely from the UZH or ETH network • Either physically sit at UZH or use the VPN services • Eduroam will not work :( • For some important venues, UZH does not have a subscription. • Try googling the paper. Many “preprint” versions are available freely on the Web. • Otherwise: check ETH, check ResearchGate (http:// researchgate.net/), or mail the authors
not require original research • —> you are not expected to collect your own data • However, you should collect, integrate, summarize, and compare existing work • The paper is then a synopsis or survey of the existing works
go into ﬁnding the best way to group and discuss your area of research • A good way to emphasize this is to come up with a comparison table (or ﬁgure), where you sketch which papers address which aspects of your ﬁeld • This table may have “holes” • —> Identiﬁed open research questions
reading are written: • Avoid unnecessary and unwarranted superlatives • Avoid claims that are not supported by data • Avoid colloquial language • Prefer passive over active voice • If you use ﬁgures or screenshots: • Make sure they look reasonably professional and visually pleasing • Check the resolution (esp. of screenshots)
No plagiarism! • You can’t copy anything. All text / ﬁgures need to be your own. • Exception: direct quotations (use very sparingly, visually distinct from text, immediately followed by citation) • No misrepresentation! • Never claim something that is not actually supported by your references. • Make clear who is the source of what! • Don’t just cite a source randomly on a page and assume that the reader infers that the rest of this part of the text is based on this source.
structure Presentation Style References Each category should be graded on an A to D scale: A: An excellent work. B: A good work with just a couple of small weaknesses. C: An average work with clear weaknesses. D: Insufficient work with many substantial weaknesses.
Comments on positive and negative aspects • Comments on macro issues (selection of literature, general approach, etc.) … • … but also gives actionable, detailed comments • Does not only criticise, but also gives concrete suggestions for improvement • You can comment on spelling or grammar, but don’t make your review primarily about that • Never make it personal. Stay professional at all costs.
I have no comments.” “Here are some typos I have found.” “Rather than doing A and B I would have looked at C and D.” “I am personally offended that you are doing A, and I think you are an idiot for it.”