by jordicabot | May 6, 2014 | evaluating research, presenting, Research Rants
We recently completed a research work that ended with a bunch of negative results. Even if negative, we thought the results we obtained were valuable because, in our opinion, were not obvious (in fact we wanted to “prove” that the variables we studied were...
by jordicabot | Apr 18, 2014 | evaluating research, Research Rants
Lionel Briand and André van der Hoek (PC Chairs of ICSE 2014, for those working on other research areas, I think it’s safe to say that ICSE is the most well-known research conference on Software Engineering) have published his analysis of the peer-review process...
by jordicabot | Mar 5, 2014 | evaluating research, publishing, Research Rants
I took the time to count how many new reviews for the ECMFA’14 conference were uploaded each day to the easychair account for the conference. The results, displayed below, are exactly what I was expecting (it’s also my own behaviour 🙂 ). Even if the...
by jordicabot | Dec 5, 2013 | evaluating research, publishing, Research Rants
Empirical validation is becoming a MUST if you want a publish a research paper on software engineering topics. In principle, this is a good thing, right? I mean, for sure, in a field like ours validating the usefulness/applicability/.. of our new...
by jordicabot | Jul 15, 2013 | evaluating research, Research Rants
via @le_feufollet I discover this paper : Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again by Douglas P. Peters and Stephen J. Ceci describing the experiment they did to see what would happen if we were to resubmit a set...
by jordicabot | Feb 27, 2013 | evaluating research, Research Rants
Today I’m coming out of the closet: I declare myself a bad reviewer. To me, peer-reviewing a journal or conference paper implies two main tasks: Deciding whether the paper should be accepted for publication Providing constructive feedback to the authors so that...
Latests SW Eng posts