Seminar report review form
Graph mining seminar, Department of Computer Science 
Spring 2010

Report writer:


Report title:


Reviewer:



Instructions for reviewers: Please fill in the identification
information above. Then address the questions below and explain your
answers. Give constructive comments. Point out both good and bad
aspects; for the bad ones, describe how you think the report could be
improved. Your assessment should be based on what kind of report you
yourself would like to read in the seminar!

(Studend feedback from previous seminars has indicated that review
reports tend to be too soft. Thus: do not hesitate to be honest in
your review -- detailed and thoughtful criticism is the best help you
can give as a reviewer to the student who authored the report!)

Please submit this review via Moodle as instructed on the seminar web
page at http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/htoivone/teaching/seminarS10/.


Contents

- Topic. In a few sentences, describe what you think are the key
  points in this report.

- Goals and Tasks. Does the report state the goals of the
  research? Does it specify clearly the tasks under study?

- Significance. How important and original is the work reported? How
  difficult is the problem it attacks? What lesson(s) does the report
  teach the reader?

- Description. If the report describes a system or a method, does it
  specify the methods to let readers replicate them?  If the report
  describes an application, is the application domain described, is
  the choice of a particular methodology discussed and the chosen
  methodology described? Bear in mind that the seminar reports have a
  limited length and therefore, necessary details can be omitted; are
  the omitted detailes clearly identified and are suitable references
  given for looking up the details?

- Claims and Evidence. Does the report make explicit claims or draw
  clear conclusions? Do the results reveal the underlying reasons or
  causes for phenomena?

- Context and Limits. Does the report motivate the research, place it
  in the context of previous work, and explain its contribution to the
  literature? Does the report note the approach's limitations and
  suggest directions for future work?

- Presentation. Are the title and summary descriptive? Does the
  introduction motivate the reader to read the report to the end? Is
  the structure of the report clear and cohesive? Are the contents
  appropriate in relation to the length of the report? Are there
  enough illustrating figures and examples? Is the language good and
  polished? Are the references appropriate?


More detailed comments and suggestions for improvement (use as much
space as you need):