Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
55 lines (40 loc) · 1.92 KB

invite-abstract-reviews.rst

File metadata and controls

55 lines (40 loc) · 1.92 KB

Note

TODO-- improve abstract review criteria

Dear SciPy 2010 Program Committee:

I am happy to report that we have received several high quality abstracts for the SciPy 2010 conference. Now, it is our task to rate these abstracts and to choose the best ones for presentation.

Of the 32 abstracts, you are each requested to review 10, as set out in the table below. Of course, you are more than welcome (and encouraged!) to review more, if time permits. We have until the end of this coming Monday 19 April; I realise this is not a lot of time, but I estimate the total commitment for each reviewer to be no more than one hour in total.

<insert review table>

The process works as follows:

  1. Look up the papers you need to review on the table above.
  2. Download the paper and score sheet from http://dip.sun.ac.za/~stefan/scipy2010/.
  3. For each reviewed abstract, fill in the appropriate marks on the provided score sheet.
  4. Email the score sheet to "Stefan van der Walt" <[email protected]> and "Jarrod Millman" <[email protected]>.

Three marks are awarded per abstract:

  • Applicability (/10)
  • Novelty (/10)
  • General impression (/10)

We will use the average of the 3 marks to do the final evaluation. The "General impression" field is necessarily vague: use it to impart your gut feel about the abstract. A comment field is provided, please share any additional thoughts.

Thank you for giving your time to shape this year's conference!

With best regards,

Jarrod Millman, UC Berkeley, USA

Stéfan van der Walt, Stellenbosch University, South Africa