Ok, after submitting, the organizer actually extended the due date of submission, and then extended, and extened again...The original due date was 31/4/2010, and ended up, they extended until end of Jun.
Well, I dont have much feeling with that decision, as long as I submitted, then who cares what happened next, I just wait for the notification, either being rejected or accepted.
And finally, the date of notification been decided, 23/8/2010. And guess what, among all my friends, they all got the notifications, and the papers are accepted, but I am the only one, didnt receive any notification. I didnt feel good with this, it ruined my day actually.
I email them after 2 days, telling them that I didnt receive any notification, and guess what, no news neither. Not until the next day after I email them, I got the notification at last, and result: REJECTED.
I was sad, being honest, and shame, as I was the only person got rejected in my faculty，GOSH!
Here are the comments given, i like one of the comments, it was a high compliment, hahaha...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
======= Review 1 =======
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Accept (8)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Weak Accept (6)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Strong Accept (10)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
the idea is under studing and the results are not prooved
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
extending the (part of speech POS) algoritms
I propose the use of the ontologies
the paper is good referenced
======= Review 2 =======
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Reject (2)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Neutral (5)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Strong Reject (0)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
- Poor presentation and usage of language
- Original work consists of 2.5 columns out of a total of 8 columns in the manuscript, and the proposal framework for WSD process is a paper design, with no implementation yet
- Some examples of how the system works would help improve the paper
- Need experimental results and comparison to Stevenson and Wilks' work would substantiate this proposal's validity and benefits
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
- Poor presentation and usage of language
- Original work consists of 2.5 columns out of a total of 8 columns in the manuscript, and the proposal framework for WSD process is a paper design, with no implementation yet
- Some examples of how the system works would help improve the paper
- Need experimental results and comparison to Stevenson and Wilks' work would substantiate this proposal's validity and benefits
======= Review 3 =======
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Neutral (5)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Reject (2)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Strong Reject (0)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
The weaknesses of this paper are given as follows.
The description of proposed framework is not perspicuous and intelligible.
The organization of this paper is lacking of experiment result and discussion.
Poor writing skill and word exposition used in the scientific paper.
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
This paper proposes a algorithm to address the problem in Word Sense Disambiguation.
======= Review 4 =======
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Accept (8)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Accept (8)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Accept (8)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
The paper is well-written. It contains a related work section that introduce the work in the field, helping a lot the reader to catch up with the topic. In addition, the proposed approach is well defined and quite interesting.
However, the reviewer would like to see more examples regading Figures 2 and 3. In addition, it is strongly recommended to use passive voice (e.g. avoid expresssions "I will propose", "I obtain", using instead "it is proposed", "is obtained" etc.).
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
The paper is suitable for a conference presentation. Please see the above comments.
======= Track Chair Review 5 =======
> *** Track Chair Recommendation: Final recommendations by Track Chair
Reject (2)
> *** Track Chair Comments: Give Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Accept (8)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Weak Accept (6)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Strong Accept (10)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
the idea is under studing and the results are not prooved
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
extending the (part of speech POS) algoritms
I propose the use of the ontologies
the paper is good referenced
======= Review 2 =======
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Reject (2)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Neutral (5)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Strong Reject (0)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
- Poor presentation and usage of language
- Original work consists of 2.5 columns out of a total of 8 columns in the manuscript, and the proposal framework for WSD process is a paper design, with no implementation yet
- Some examples of how the system works would help improve the paper
- Need experimental results and comparison to Stevenson and Wilks' work would substantiate this proposal's validity and benefits
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
- Poor presentation and usage of language
- Original work consists of 2.5 columns out of a total of 8 columns in the manuscript, and the proposal framework for WSD process is a paper design, with no implementation yet
- Some examples of how the system works would help improve the paper
- Need experimental results and comparison to Stevenson and Wilks' work would substantiate this proposal's validity and benefits
======= Review 3 =======
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Neutral (5)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Reject (2)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Strong Reject (0)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
The weaknesses of this paper are given as follows.
The description of proposed framework is not perspicuous and intelligible.
The organization of this paper is lacking of experiment result and discussion.
Poor writing skill and word exposition used in the scientific paper.
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
This paper proposes a algorithm to address the problem in Word Sense Disambiguation.
======= Review 4 =======
> *** Originality: New or Novel contribution
Accept (8)
> *** Significance of Topic: Relating to knowledge contribution
Accept (8)
> *** Presentation: Clarity and Organisation of Content
Accept (8)
> *** Strengths/Weakness: What are the major reasons to accept/reject the paper? [Be brief.]
The paper is well-written. It contains a related work section that introduce the work in the field, helping a lot the reader to catch up with the topic. In addition, the proposed approach is well defined and quite interesting.
However, the reviewer would like to see more examples regading Figures 2 and 3. In addition, it is strongly recommended to use passive voice (e.g. avoid expresssions "I will propose", "I obtain", using instead "it is proposed", "is obtained" etc.).
> *** Contribution/s & Detailed comments: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors.
The paper is suitable for a conference presentation. Please see the above comments.
======= Track Chair Review 5 =======
> *** Track Chair Recommendation: Final recommendations by Track Chair
Reject (2)
> *** Track Chair Comments: Give Reasons for Accepting or Rejecting
Refer to comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess what, I am actually kind of agree with the comments given. My paper, some how very confusing, is it a review paper, discussing about the topic, or it proposed something new to the industrial? I combined both, and giving a wrong name as well. As by reading the name of my paper, people might expect something new to be proposed, and at the mean time, my proposed algorithm, it was so weak, and general.
Anyway, this is the second papers that i got rejected from the conferences. A lot of hard work required next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guess what, I am actually kind of agree with the comments given. My paper, some how very confusing, is it a review paper, discussing about the topic, or it proposed something new to the industrial? I combined both, and giving a wrong name as well. As by reading the name of my paper, people might expect something new to be proposed, and at the mean time, my proposed algorithm, it was so weak, and general.
Anyway, this is the second papers that i got rejected from the conferences. A lot of hard work required next.
No comments:
Post a Comment