How to Improve: In readers' Shoes China You know your work, but not your readers o Reviewers/Readers: in the same broad area but have not worked on your problems . Define terms. write about motivation and rationales, pose potential questions and answer them yourself o What are your contributions o Show your elegance? Dont! Unless for pure math, or when you are really famous
%) +")' ( +% :' " ! ' 0 ! +% ,'$ ! 9 0% ! +' 0 5 ' % $ # ! & %$ &9(B H 0 % $ $
A Reviewer 's comments China This paper attempts to explain the success of Naive Bayes classifiers by showing that Unfortunately, this paper was extremely difficult to follow. In fact, it took several readings before I even understood the paper's basic claims. The paper should have stated, at the beginning, that it is focusing on the representational (as opposed to learnability) issue:. It would also have been useful to connect this notation with something practical--for example, The arguments and proofs were difficult to follow. They would probably have been easier if the paper had first outlined their structure, before giving the details
; 4 2+8$ !$ % @ H $0 %4 $' %) 0 ,+ '! )+ ' ' I ! ; ' +'0 !0 6' ! $7 "@ )% ' +! % // 4 0@ ; ' % ' %; $% ' !! $ +! ' ' 0! + ' @
How to Improve What reviewers want China Reviewers (partial check list Does the paper introduce a new problem or provide a new solution to an existing one? What is the main result of the paper Is the result significant? Is the paper technically sound? Does the paper provide an assessment of the strengths and limitations of the techniques/result? Is the paper clearly written so as to accessible to most al researchers? Does the paper reference appropriate related work? Should the paper be nominated for a prize?
%) +" # +% # ! " # J $ % & J ' J ( & J ( J $ & ) * J ( +( J $ J , -
How to Improve: Sell Our Work China o Unless it is an invited paper o Purpose driven: debating: why are we good Logical flow Problem X is important Simplest图时t convey eanrigusied B have certain weakness Professianalionos carelessrmaistakes Proof-Feaarirgent with D, compare with A, B D is better than A, b (rigorously tested Prope wse isoetes Why didn't E, F work? Strengths and weaknesses of d Future work of d
%) +" # , H +' @ ' +"'!"% $ %' = % K . K + / 0 K+ / K' $ K1% $ + / K$ + /! & " K' $ ' 21 3 K, & $ K3 $ J !" +$ J " , K / ' K % '