Liebe Kollegen,
ich möchte einen ungewöhnlichen Review mit Euch teilen.
Seht selber.
Was war das Ergebnis, keynote, panel debate session, nix?
Viele Grüße,
Bertin.
===== Review =====
*** Originality (Originality of work): Accept (6)
*** Quality (Quality of research or analysis of experience): Strong Accept (7)
*** Relevance (Relevance to ICDAR): Strong Accept (7)
*** Presentation (Presentation of ideas (e.g. writing, appropriate use of
graphics, references)): Strong Accept (7)
*** Recommendation (Overall recommendation): Strong Accept (7)
*** Points for/against:
This type of paper is very important for ICDAR, and would make a suitable topic for a keynote speech. It contrasts with the large majority of ICDAR papers, which focus on a new method or technique for addressing a particular document recognition problem. Here we find a discussion of DAS in the "real world", the factors affecting commercialization and success in the marketplace.
The paper is very well written, providing a readable introduction and overview of economic factors and interactions in the production of DA systems. The author has special expertise and experience in this area.
===== Review =====
*** Originality (Originality of work): Neutral (4)
*** Quality (Quality of research or analysis of experience): Weak Reject (3)
*** Relevance (Relevance to ICDAR): Weak Accept (5)
*** Presentation (Presentation of ideas (e.g. writing, appropriate use of
graphics, references)): Weak Reject (3)
*** Recommendation (Overall recommendation): Weak Reject (3)
*** Points for/against:
I decided "weak reject", because I think this paper would be more suitable for the starting-point of panel debate session rather than poster/oral presentation. I agree with the following proposition descied in the conclusion, "it is time to move to a commercial model where DAS components are mass produced". This is just good theme of panel discussion.
===== Review =====
*** Originality (Originality of work): Neutral (4)
*** Quality (Quality of research or analysis of experience): Reject (2)
*** Relevance (Relevance to ICDAR): Reject (2)
*** Presentation (Presentation of ideas (e.g. writing, appropriate use of
graphics, references)): Weak Accept (5)
*** Recommendation (Overall recommendation): Reject (2)
*** Points for/against:
It is worth considering non-traditional papers at ICDAR; in this case, a paper that is much more business-oriented. I believe the connection to research is too distant, however, and as a result, I don't believe ICDAR attendees will find this paper helpful or interesting.
=================
Wer bis hier gelesen hat, soll auch das logische und wohl unvermeidliche Ergebnis bestätigt bekommen: nix, "reject".
Aber der Review ist trotzdem klasse. Nur zum Vergleich: vor genau 2 Jahren, hatte ich genau das selbe Papier, auf genau der selben Konferenz eingereicht und folgende Reviews bekommen:
* Reviewer 1 comment:
It is very hard to find the implementation details of the proposed systems. Furthermore, there is no technical originality and novelty. Looks like a technical report.
* Reviewer 2’s comment: <empty>
* Reviewer 3’s comment:
The topic discussed in this paper is not much related to the interested areas of ICDAR. It is highly relevant to economics or business subjects