This might be description associated with the various kinds of paper at COLING 2018

This might be description associated with the various kinds of paper at COLING 2018

It is essential to select the paper that is right to be able to assist get top quality reviews for the work. Keep in mind that all paper kinds make use of the template that is same download the phrase and LaTeX templates right here: coling2018.zip

Computationally-aided analysis that is linguistic

The main focus of the paper kind is new linguistic understanding. It could take the type of an empirical research of some linguistic event, or of a theoretical outcome of a linguistically-relevant system that is formal.

  1. Relevance: Is this paper highly relevant to COLING?
  2. Readability/clarity: Through the real method the paper is created, is it possible to inform exactly exactly just what research concern ended up being addressed, that which was done and exactly why, and how the outcomes relate genuinely to the investigation concern?
  3. Originality: How initial and innovative social psychology research topic could be the extensive research described? Originality might be when you look at the question that is linguistic addressed, when you look at the methodology applied to the linguistic concern, or in the blend for the two.
  4. Technical correctness/soundness: could be the research described in the paper theoretically sound and proper? Is one able to trust the claims for the paper—are they sustained by the analysis or experiments and they are the results precisely interpreted?
  5. Reproducibility: can there be detail that is sufficient somebody in identical industry to reproduce/replicate the outcomes? n/a for several kinds of theoretical results
  6. Data/code access: may be the data/code (as appropriate) open to the study community or perhaps is here a compelling explanation provided why it is not feasible?
  7. Generalizability: Does the paper show just just how the outcomes generalize, either by deepening our comprehension of some system that is linguistic general or by showing methodology that may be put on other issues as well? n/a for several forms of theoretical results
  8. Meaningful comparison: Does the paper clearly spot the described make use of respect to current literary works? Will it be clear both what exactly is novel within the extensive research presented and just how it develops on previous work?
  9. Substance: performs this paper have sufficient substance for the paper that is full-length or wouldn’t it reap the benefits of further development?
  10. Overall suggestion: there are lots of submissions that are good for slots at COLING 2018; essential could it be to feature that one? Will people discover great deal by scanning this paper or seeing it presented? Please be decisive—it is way better to vary from other reviewers rather than grade every thing in the centre.

NLP engineering test paper

This paper kind fits the majority of submissions at present CL and NLP conferences.

  1. Relevance: Is it paper highly relevant to COLING?
  2. Readability/clarity: Through the means the paper is written, are you able to inform just just what research concern was addressed, that which was done and just why, and exactly how the outcome relate genuinely to the study concern?
    1. Can it be clear what the authors’ hypothesis is? What exactly is it? A text input reponse
    2. Can it be clear the way the writers have actually tested their theory? y/n
  3. Originality: How initial and revolutionary may be the extensive research described? Remember that originality could include a brand new method or a unique task, or it may lie into the careful analysis of what are the results when an understood technique is placed on a known task (in which the pairing is novel) or into the careful analysis of what goes on each time an understood strategy is put on an understood task in a brand new language.
  4. Technical correctness/soundness: may be the extensive research described in the paper theoretically sound and correct? Is one to trust the claims associated with the paper—are they supported by the analysis or experiments and tend to be the results correctly interpreted?
    1. Can it be clear the way the total outcomes confirm/refute the theory, or would be the results inconclusive?
    2. Perform some writers explain how a outcomes follow from their theory (rather than state, other feasible confounding element)?
    3. Would be the datasets utilized obviously described and so are they suitable for testing the hypothesis as previously mentioned?
  5. Reproducibility: will there be detail that is sufficient somebody in identical industry to reproduce/replicate the outcomes?
  6. Data/code supply: could be the data/code (as appropriate) open to the study community or perhaps is here a compelling explanation provided why this is simply not possible?
  7. Error analysis: Does the paper provide a thoughtful mistake analysis, which actively seeks linguistic habits when you look at the forms of mistakes created by the system(s) assessed and sheds light on either avenues for future work or even the supply of the strengths/weaknesses for the systems?
  8. Significant contrast: Does the paper clearly position the described make use of respect to literature that is existing? Can it be clear both what’s novel into the research presented and just how it develops on previous work?
  9. Substance: performs this paper have sufficient substance for the full-length paper, or wouldn’t it reap the benefits of further work?
  10. Overall suggestion: there are lots of submissions that are good for slots at COLING 2018; how important could it be to feature this 1? Will people discover great deal by looking over this paper or seeing it presented? Please be decisive—it is much better to vary from other reviewers rather than grade every thing at the center.

Post a Comment

Your email is kept private. Required fields are marked *