i. A statement of the contribution of the reviewed paper. (One paragraph). State, in your own words, and as briefly as possible, the problem addressed in the paper and the results obtained. State the relationship of the paper to past work on the same or related problems. Assume the reader will have any necessary background knowledge.
ii. A summary of the paper. (Five pages.) Survey in more detail the methods used and the results obtained in the paper. Include any necessary background information. Include technical details (definitions, theorems, equations, etc.), as appropriate. However, keep the main emphasis on the ideas presented – the flavor of the results.
iii. A critical assessment of the paper. Evaluate the technical contributions of the paper, as well as the effectiveness of the paper in communicating the results of the work. Comment on the suitability of the title: Does it accurately reflect the contents of the paper? Also comment on the abstract and the conclusion: Do they clearly summarize the work presented? Are there any unsubstantiated claims?
iv. A discussion of open questions and ideas for future work. Discuss issues that could be investigated that are not addressed in the paper. For example, you could consider ideas on (a) finding a way of relaxing any imposed constraints or assumptions that limit the applicability of the work; (b) applying the same approach to a more general problem; (c) using an entirely different approach for the same or related problem. Sometimes, ideas for further study are suggested by the author(s).
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|