How NOT to review a paper: the tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer

Abstract

There are several useful guides available for how to review a paper in Computer Science [10, 6, 12, 7, 2]. These are soberly presented, carefully reasoned and sensibly argued. As a result, they are not much fun. So, as a contrast, this note is a checklist of how not to review a paper. It details techniques that are unethical, unfair, or just plain nasty. Since in Computer Science we often present arguments about how an adversary would approach a particular problem, this note describes the adversary's strategy.

References

1. Mark Allman. A referee's plea. http://www.icir.org/mallman/plea.txt, 2001.
2. Mark Allman. Thoughts on reviewing. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review (CCR), 38(2), April 2008.
3. Joshua S. Gans and George B. Shepherd. How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1):165--179, 1994.
4. Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. The Complete 'Yes Minister'. BBC Books, 1984.
5. Frank Manola. How to get even with database conferece program committees. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 4(1):30--36, September 1981.
6. Ian Parberry. A guide for new referees in theoretical computer science. Information and Computation, 112(1):96--116, 1994.
7. Timothy Roscoe. Writing reviews for systems conferences. http://people.inf.ethz.ch/troscoe/pubs/review-writing.pdf, 2007.
8. Simone Santini. We are sorry to inform you.. Computer, 38(12):128--127, 2005.
9. Simon Singh. Fermat's Last Theorem. Fourth Estate, 1997.
10. Alan Jay Smith. The task of the referee. IEEE Computer, 23(4):65--71, 1990.
11. Mary-Claire van Leunen and Richard Liption. How to have your abstract rejected. SIGACT News, 8(3):21--24, 1976.
12. Toby Walsh. How to write a review. http://www.labunix.uqam.ca/~jpmf/int-mgmt/walsh1.pdf, 2001.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing profession

      • Codes of ethics