Hey everyone!
\nSince the peer feedback period will start soon, I just wanted to share a bit about how I approach writing peer feedback, drawing from my experiences doing paper peer reviews. I generally follow a structured format that I've found super helpful, and I thought it might be beneficial for others here too. Here's how I break it down:
\nSummary: Begin by summarizing the key ideas, experiments, and their significance in 3-5 sentences. This gives a clear snapshot of the essay content.
Essay Strengths: Identify the strengths of the essay and articulate why these aspects are valuable. This helps appreciate the strong points of the work.
Essay Weaknesses: Highlight the essay weaknesses. Be specific and base your observations on facts. If the ideas seem unoriginal, cite relevant references for better credibility.
Overall Rating: Rate the Essay on a scale. We usually use the range from 'Strong Accept' to 'Strong Reject' for paper review. However, you can change it to a numerical range if needed! This provides an overall assessment of the work.
Recommendation Justification: Explain your rating decision. This could involve detailing how you've weighed the various strengths and weaknesses you've mentioned above.
Detailed Comments: Finally, share any additional comments about the essay, such as typos, flaws, unsupported claims, or suggestions to strengthen the submission. This offers constructive feedback for improvement.
Following this structure not only ensures that you adhere to the competition's guidance for providing high-quality peer feedback, but also gives your feedback a coherent and clear structure. This will hopefully make the peer review process smoother and more beneficial for all involved.
\nPerhaps you can start by reviewing my essay here 😉
\nHappy reviewing, folks! 🚀
", "messages": [ { "id": "2331445", "postDate": "07/05/2023 14:52:30", "content": "Hey everyone!
\nSince the peer feedback period will start soon, I just wanted to share a bit about how I approach writing peer feedback, drawing from my experiences doing paper peer reviews. I generally follow a structured format that I've found super helpful, and I thought it might be beneficial for others here too. Here's how I break it down:
\nSummary: Begin by summarizing the key ideas, experiments, and their significance in 3-5 sentences. This gives a clear snapshot of the essay content.
Essay Strengths: Identify the strengths of the essay and articulate why these aspects are valuable. This helps appreciate the strong points of the work.
Essay Weaknesses: Highlight the essay weaknesses. Be specific and base your observations on facts. If the ideas seem unoriginal, cite relevant references for better credibility.
Overall Rating: Rate the Essay on a scale. We usually use the range from 'Strong Accept' to 'Strong Reject' for paper review. However, you can change it to a numerical range if needed! This provides an overall assessment of the work.
Recommendation Justification: Explain your rating decision. This could involve detailing how you've weighed the various strengths and weaknesses you've mentioned above.
Detailed Comments: Finally, share any additional comments about the essay, such as typos, flaws, unsupported claims, or suggestions to strengthen the submission. This offers constructive feedback for improvement.
Following this structure not only ensures that you adhere to the competition's guidance for providing high-quality peer feedback, but also gives your feedback a coherent and clear structure. This will hopefully make the peer review process smoother and more beneficial for all involved.
\nPerhaps you can start by reviewing my essay here 😉
\nHappy reviewing, folks! 🚀
", "rawMarkdown": "Hey everyone! \n\nSince the peer feedback period will start soon, I just wanted to share a bit about how I approach writing peer feedback, drawing from my experiences doing paper peer reviews. I generally follow a structured format that I've found super helpful, and I thought it might be beneficial for others here too. Here's how I break it down:\n\n1. **Summary:** Begin by summarizing the key ideas, experiments, and their significance in 3-5 sentences. This gives a clear snapshot of the essay content.\n\n2. **Essay Strengths:** Identify the strengths of the essay and articulate why these aspects are valuable. This helps appreciate the strong points of the work.\n\n3. **Essay Weaknesses:** Highlight the essay weaknesses. Be specific and base your observations on facts. If the ideas seem unoriginal, cite relevant references for better credibility.\n\n4. **Overall Rating:** Rate the Essay on a scale. We usually use the range from 'Strong Accept' to 'Strong Reject' for paper review. However, you can change it to a numerical range if needed! This provides an overall assessment of the work.\n\n5. **Recommendation Justification:** Explain your rating decision. This could involve detailing how you've weighed the various strengths and weaknesses you've mentioned above.\n\n6. **Detailed Comments:** Finally, share any additional comments about the essay, such as typos, flaws, unsupported claims, or suggestions to strengthen the submission. This offers constructive feedback for improvement.\n\nFollowing this structure not only ensures that you adhere to the competition's guidance for providing high-quality peer feedback, but also gives your feedback a coherent and clear structure. This will hopefully make the peer review process smoother and more beneficial for all involved. \n\nPerhaps you can start by reviewing my essay [here](https://www.kaggle.com/code/muhammadirfanakbar/data-centric-ai-the-underdog-game-changer-in-ai) 😉\n\nHappy reviewing, folks! 🚀", "votes": null }, { "id": "2335261", "postDate": "07/08/2023 11:52:55", "content": "I think some of this is helpful as it comes directly from the guidelines and some of this can be misleading. Kaggle gives clear guidelines on quality feedback. You can suggest additional information and it may or may not help or harm a competitor's ranking.
", "rawMarkdown": "I think some of this is helpful as it comes directly from the guidelines and some of this can be misleading. Kaggle gives clear guidelines on quality feedback. You can suggest additional information and it may or may not help or harm a competitor's ranking.", "votes": null }, { "id": "2335331", "postDate": "07/08/2023 13:08:51", "content": "yes, I did refer to the guidance given by the organizer. My intention in making such a framework is to make the point given by the organizer more structured and coherent in contrast to only having scattered points. For instance, instead of having a separate section about \"Evaluate the significance of the work and interest to the ML community\", I think it will be better to just explain it in the strength of the essay. Furthermore, the point of \"Provide feedback concerning potential flaws for any unsupported claims\" can also be included in the detailed comment, showing the exact location of the potential flaws, and so on.
\nHowever, again, this is just my personal recommendation and I don't have any intention to mislead people at all. If you think that the structure is inappropriate, feel free to just strictly follow the guidance given by Kaggle.
", "rawMarkdown": "yes, I did refer to the guidance given by the organizer. My intention in making such a framework is to make the point given by the organizer more structured and coherent in contrast to only having scattered points. For instance, instead of having a separate section about \"Evaluate the significance of the work and interest to the ML community\", I think it will be better to just explain it in the strength of the essay. Furthermore, the point of \"Provide feedback concerning potential flaws for any unsupported claims\" can also be included in the detailed comment, showing the exact location of the potential flaws, and so on.\n\nHowever, again, this is just my personal recommendation and I don't have any intention to mislead people at all. If you think that the structure is inappropriate, feel free to just strictly follow the guidance given by Kaggle.", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 2335261, "author_name": "princej112", "author_url": "", "post_date": "07/08/2023 11:52:55", "content": "I think some of this is helpful as it comes directly from the guidelines and some of this can be misleading. Kaggle gives clear guidelines on quality feedback. You can suggest additional information and it may or may not help or harm a competitor's ranking.
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 2335331, "author_name": "muhammadirfanakbar", "author_url": "", "post_date": "07/08/2023 13:08:51", "content": "yes, I did refer to the guidance given by the organizer. My intention in making such a framework is to make the point given by the organizer more structured and coherent in contrast to only having scattered points. For instance, instead of having a separate section about \"Evaluate the significance of the work and interest to the ML community\", I think it will be better to just explain it in the strength of the essay. Furthermore, the point of \"Provide feedback concerning potential flaws for any unsupported claims\" can also be included in the detailed comment, showing the exact location of the potential flaws, and so on.
\nHowever, again, this is just my personal recommendation and I don't have any intention to mislead people at all. If you think that the structure is inappropriate, feel free to just strictly follow the guidance given by Kaggle.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "2331445": "Hey everyone! \n\nSince the peer feedback period will start soon, I just wanted to share a bit about how I approach writing peer feedback, drawing from my experiences doing paper peer reviews. I generally follow a structured format that I've found super helpful, and I thought it might be beneficial for others here too. Here's how I break it down:\n\n1. **Summary:** Begin by summarizing the key ideas, experiments, and their significance in 3-5 sentences. This gives a clear snapshot of the essay content.\n\n2. **Essay Strengths:** Identify the strengths of the essay and articulate why these aspects are valuable. This helps appreciate the strong points of the work.\n\n3. **Essay Weaknesses:** Highlight the essay weaknesses. Be specific and base your observations on facts. If the ideas seem unoriginal, cite relevant references for better credibility.\n\n4. **Overall Rating:** Rate the Essay on a scale. We usually use the range from 'Strong Accept' to 'Strong Reject' for paper review. However, you can change it to a numerical range if needed! This provides an overall assessment of the work.\n\n5. **Recommendation Justification:** Explain your rating decision. This could involve detailing how you've weighed the various strengths and weaknesses you've mentioned above.\n\n6. **Detailed Comments:** Finally, share any additional comments about the essay, such as typos, flaws, unsupported claims, or suggestions to strengthen the submission. This offers constructive feedback for improvement.\n\nFollowing this structure not only ensures that you adhere to the competition's guidance for providing high-quality peer feedback, but also gives your feedback a coherent and clear structure. This will hopefully make the peer review process smoother and more beneficial for all involved. \n\nPerhaps you can start by reviewing my essay [here](https://www.kaggle.com/code/muhammadirfanakbar/data-centric-ai-the-underdog-game-changer-in-ai) 😉\n\nHappy reviewing, folks! 🚀", "2335261": "I think some of this is helpful as it comes directly from the guidelines and some of this can be misleading. Kaggle gives clear guidelines on quality feedback. You can suggest additional information and it may or may not help or harm a competitor's ranking.", "2335331": "yes, I did refer to the guidance given by the organizer. My intention in making such a framework is to make the point given by the organizer more structured and coherent in contrast to only having scattered points. For instance, instead of having a separate section about \"Evaluate the significance of the work and interest to the ML community\", I think it will be better to just explain it in the strength of the essay. Furthermore, the point of \"Provide feedback concerning potential flaws for any unsupported claims\" can also be included in the detailed comment, showing the exact location of the potential flaws, and so on.\n\nHowever, again, this is just my personal recommendation and I don't have any intention to mislead people at all. If you think that the structure is inappropriate, feel free to just strictly follow the guidance given by Kaggle." }, "source": "meta" }