SODA 2004 - Scoring instructions
ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2004), January
2004, New Orleans
Scope of the conference (from the call for
papers)
Themes and application areas include, but are not limited to, the
following topics:
*Combinatorics and other aspects of Discrete Mathematics such as:
- Combinatorial Structures
- Discrete Optimization
- Discrete Probability
- Graph Drawing
- Graphs and Networks
- Mathematical Programming
- Number Theory
- Algebra, and Random Structures
*other aspects of Computer Science such as:
- Communication Networks
- Computational Geometry
- Computer Graphics and Computer Vision
- Computer Systems
- Cryptography and Security
- Data Compression
- Databases and Information Retrieval
- Distributed Algorithms
- Experimental Algorithmics
- Machine Learning
- On-line Problems
- Quantum Computing
- Pattern Matching
- Robotics
- Symbolic Computation, and the World Wide Web
*and applications in the Sciences and Business such as: Biology,
Physics, and Finance.
The program committee encourages submissions from researchers
in the discrete mathematics
and experimental and applied algorithms communities.
Submissions from the discrete
mathematics community may address the design and analysis
of algorithms for discrete structures or the development of algorithms
as tools for investigating significant open questions in
mathematics.
Experimental and applied submissions may deal, for
example, with efficient implementation of fundamental algorithms
or with heuristics for basic difficult problems. They should
provide new and significant insights into algorithmic
performance and/or design or discuss the methodology of doing
experimental performance analysis. Applied papers should deal
with algorithms applied in a specific practical setting and
should include convincing evidence that the algorithms or data
structures discussed are useful and efficient in the particular
context.
Criteria:
When grading a paper, I ask you to address the following (interrelated)
issues. A paper with high grade should score high on several of the
parameters below.
Relevance
In what respect is the paper relevant to algorithms and discrete
mathematics? Is it directly relevant for the design, use, or analysis
of algorithms? Or may it have indirect implications for the development
or the theory of algorithms?
Foundational/conceptual contribution
Note things like a new model, new notion, new definition, new approach,
novel implementation. Note the significance and reasons for this novelty
(and note the absence of such a novelty!).
Technical development
Does the paper make an
- introduction of a new technique?
- novel use of known technique?
- talented use of known technique?
- traditional use of known technique?
- trivial use of technical knowledge?
Relation to open problems:
Does the paper solve completely/partially an open question? How
important is this question?
(central/important/interesting/legitimate/stupid). How much effort has
been invested in solving it and by whom?
Social interest in paper:
Is it potentially interesting to the whole algorithmic community, to a
major field (e.g. approximation algorithms), to everyone in a restricted
area (e.g. motion planning, the knapsack problem), or interesting only
to the authors?
How will it contribute?
fertilization, satisfy curiosity, who knows?
Paper type:
Is it a
- first step (opens a new area)?
- last step (closes an important area)?
- giant step (makes essential progress)?
- none of the above?
Is the paper
- Is the paper a research contribution?
- Is is an experience paper/experimental paper?
- Or is it both?
Writing a review
I ask you to evaluate the paper and send me a short written report by
e-mail, including a short summary. If you wish, you may also suggest a
grade between 0.01 and 10.0 [10=excellent, 1=poor] and a confidence
level of your judgement on an scale between 1 and 3, as indicated
below. You may also write comments for the authors about mistakes or
suggestions that would help them to improve their paper. Please
indicate these comments with a line that starts with the words
Comments for author:
The text before this line will be made available only to the program
committee, but not to the author. You may also make your evaluation
available to the author(s), by placing the "Comments for author:"-line
at the very beginning.
Score ratings
One general point. There is not enough room to accept all the papers
we might want to. In this case, there will be publishable papers that
won't be accepted. Therefore being a competent piece of work may not
be sufficient for acceptance. The cut off for acceptance should be
viewed as roughly 5.5.
9-10: An enthusiastic yes. An excellent paper - advances the field in
an important way - well written and makes it easy to understand what
the significance of their result is - everyone should definitely
attend the talk. This should be among the top 10% of the papers
accepted to the conference. I will fight strongly for this paper.
8-8.99 A strong vote for acceptance. A solid contribution - I feel I
learned something worthwhile from this paper - I want to attend
the talk. This paper should be in the top third of the papers in
the conference.
7-7.99 A vote for acceptance. This will be in the middle third of the
papers at the conference. Not a stellar result, but clearly worth
accepting.
6-6.99: A weak vote for acceptance. A reasonable contribution to
an interesting problem - or maybe the contribution is good but
the authors don't seem to understand what it is and/or express it
well - or maybe it's a good paper, but the subject area is marginal
for the conference.
5.0-5.99: Ambivalent. I might support accepting this paper,
but I don't advocate accepting it.
Probably publishable as a journal paper in a medium
journal, but a bit too specialized or too incremental
for SODA '04. Or perhaps it has nice ideas but
is too preliminary, or too poorly written.
4.0-4.99 A competent paper, but not of sufficient interest/depth
for SODA '04. A weak to moderate vote for rejection,
but I might not object very strongly if others pushed for the paper.
2.5-3.99: A solid vote for rejection. Too preliminary / badly-written /
making-such-a-minor-improvement-on-such-an-esoteric-topic for SODA '04.
It is very unlikely that I could be convinced to support this paper.
1-2.49 A strong vote for rejection.
A poor paper, unsuitable for any journal.
I will fight to have this paper rejected from the conference.
0.01-.99: Absolute reject. Completely trivial and/or non-novel and/or
incorrect and/or completely out of scope.
Confidence ratings: Range 1-3
- I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed
outsider. I have some idea of what this paper is about, but I'm not all
that confident of my judgment on it.
- I am fairly familiar with the area of this paper, and have read
the paper closely enough to be reasonably confident of my judgment.
- Consider me an "expert" on this paper. I understand it in
detail.
Ethical Issues
Submitted papers are confidential. We are
not supposed to distribute them, or use them for our research.
Similarly, your grades and the deliberations of the committee will be
kept confidential. Submissions should be judged solely on the basis
of the submitted extended abstract. You may have a personal bias on
some papers. The reasons are many - personal/professional ties to
authors, your student is just working on the same problem, etc. only you
can judge such a bias, and decide if you don't feel comfortable grading
the paper.