Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Tutorial on reviewing your own paper (and those of others)

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Prochain SlideShare
Scientific writing
Scientific writing
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 44 Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Similaire à Tutorial on reviewing your own paper (and those of others) (20)

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

Tutorial on reviewing your own paper (and those of others)

  1. 1. Reviewing Your Own Paper (and those of others) Tim Grant Retired But Active Researcher (R-BAR) Chair, ISCRAM Publications & Academic Standards Committee (PASC) r̅
  2. 2. Overview • Goal: – To help listeners to produce better submissions to conferences, journals, & books by gaining knowledge of reviewing own & other papers • Outline: – Reviewing: history, process, products, roles – Reviewing criteria & how to review – Shortcomings, criticisms & failure of reviewing – Online possibilities – Key resources – An exercise for the attendee Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 2
  3. 3. Introduction: about me • Career: – 1966-87: Royal Air Force officer (UK & SG) – 1987-2004: Consultant, ICT services industry (NL) – 2001-09: Visiting Professor, University of Pretoria (ZA) – 2004-12: Professor, Netherlands Defence Academy (NL) • Qualifications: – 1969: Bachelor of Science, Aero Engineering, Bristol (UK) – 1984: Defence Fellowship (Masters), Brunel (UK) – 1996: PhD, Artificial Intelligence, Maastricht (NL) • ISCRAM: – 2009-date: Board member & PASC chair Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 3
  4. 4. Introduction: reviewing (1) • Reviewing (aka refereeing): – Subjecting draft proposals, papers, posters, demonstrations, theses, courses, subjects, etc to critical evaluation • Why? – Quality control; help authors to learn – Admission to “Body of Knowledge” (BoK) – Assignment of credit & priority to authors • By whom? – Independent experts working in same field – Can be board / panel / tribunal of experts – More usually peers (other researchers / authors) Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 4
  5. 5. Introduction: reviewing (2) • Where? – Evaluation of applications for funding – Review of project reports by researchers to assess successful progress / completion – Review of draft conference presentations, journal articles, and monographs to check they meet quality standards – Evaluation of set of papers after publication for review article – Evaluation of quality of work produced by individuals, teams, departments, and institutions to help determine: • Appointments • Promotions • Levels of funding Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 5 RIN, 2010
  6. 6. Brief history (1) • 854-931: Ishap bin Ali Al Rahwi, “Ethics of Physician”: – 1st description of (medical) peer review • 1453: printing press • 1543-1564: Copernicus, Servetus, Galileo, Versalius: – Review by non-peers • 1620: Francis Bacon’s New Philosophy: – Scientific method • 1662: Royal Society, London, chartered: – 1st learned society • 1665: Philosophical Transactions: – 1st scientific journal; editor selects publications Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 6 Spier, 2002
  7. 7. Brief history (2) • 1752: Royal Society adopts review procedure: – Pioneered in Edinburgh since 1731 – Need for editorial committee (initially to fill excess space) • 1890: Typewriter & carbon copies (1959 Xerox): – Easier to circulate submissions to reviewers • Approx 1940: Diversity & specialization of material: – Excess journal space vanishes; need to discriminate – Need for external reviewers • 1989-98: International Congresses on Peer Review • Since approx 1990: PC, Internet, email, WWW: – Online journals; Open Access movement Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 7 Spier, 2002
  8. 8. Reviewing process (1) Linköping, 5 Jun 13 8 Problem Research Write up Review Publish Research Funding Teach Evaluate Teaching Design Develop Product Service Valorization Evaluate citations / impact patents use in courses Ideally should predict citations / impact, patents, & use in courses BoK
  9. 9. Reviewing process (2) • Steps in review process: 1. Authors submit draft paper to editors/publishers 2. Publisher’s staff log submission & acknowledge receipt 3. Editors assign draft paper to reviewers 4. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance, rejection, or modification • Typically 2 or 3 reviewers 1. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform authors 2. Authors modify paper & resubmit revised version Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 9 RIN, 2010
  10. 10. Reviewing process (3) • Steps in ISCRAM review process: 1. Authors upload draft paper to ConfTool 2. ConfTool logs, acknowledges receipt, & informs Track chair 3. Track chair assigns draft paper to reviewers in ConfTool 4. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance, rejection, or modification in ConfTool 5. Meta-reviewers weigh recommendations in ConfTool 6. Track chair makes decision & informs authors via ConfTool 7. Authors modify paper & upload revised version, details of changes made & copyright form to ConfTool 8. ConfTool logs, acknowledges receipt, & informs Track chair Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 10 (Adapted from) RIN, 2010
  11. 11. Reviewing process (4) • Variations on reviewing process: – Submission: • (Extended) abstract + paper; paper only – Submission types: • Full paper; short/work-in-progress paper; practitioner paper; poster; demonstration; exhibit – Reviewing: • By committee; blind; double-blind; restricted; crowd (open) – Medium: • Paper; CD-ROM; USB; online • Restricted (to attendees or to members) vs open access Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 11
  12. 12. Reviewing process (5) • Steps in review process (with abstract, eg for book): 1. Authors submit abstract to editors/publishers 2. Editors assess abstract, make decision, & inform authors 3. Authors submit draft paper to editors/publishers 4. Publisher’s staff log & acknowledge receipt 5. Editors assign draft paper to reviewers 6. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance, rejection, or modification 7. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform authors 8. Authors modify paper & resubmit revised version Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 12 (Adapted from) RIN, 2010
  13. 13. Reviewing process (6) • Steps in review process (for journal): 1. Authors submit abstract to editors/publishers 2. Editors assess abstract, make decision, & inform authors 3. Authors submit draft paper to editors/publishers 4. Publisher’s staff log & acknowledge receipt 5. Editors assign draft paper to reviewers 6. Reviewers assess draft paper, recommending acceptance, rejection, or modification 7. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform authors 8. Authors modify draft paper & resubmit revised version 9. Reviewers assess revised paper & make new recommendation 10. Editors weigh recommendations, make decision, & inform authors 11. Authors modify paper & resubmit revised version Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 13 (Adapted from) RIN, 2010
  14. 14. Reviewing process (7) • Conferences: – Usually 1 iteration; paper only; 8-10 pages – (Less often) 2 iterations: first abstract, then paper • Journals: – 2 or more iterations; paper only; 20-30 pages – At least 50% new material for conference paper • Books: – 2 iterations: • Extended abstract or chapter proposal (typically 2 pages) • Chapter / contribution; 20-30 pages Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 14
  15. 15. Reviewing process (8) • Differences between disciplines: – Humanities & social sciences: • Double-blind common • Authors may be allowed to nominate reviewer(s) – Sciences: • Single-blind common; increasingly double-blind – Medical field: • Increasingly open-review Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 15
  16. 16. Products from reviewing • Paper template • Copyright form • Review template • Email templates for: – Acknowledging receipt – Informing Track chair of upload – Assigning papers to reviewers – Rejection, acceptance, & conditional acceptance – Final acceptance of camera-ready copy Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 16
  17. 17. Roles in reviewing • Author: writes, submits & modifies paper • Track chair: assigns submissions to reviewers • Reviewer: reviews set (2..6) of submissions • Meta-reviewer: moderates (2..4) reviews • (Editor: combines Track chair & meta-reviewer roles) • Programme Committee = {Editors} – ISCRAM: Scientific Committee = {Track chairs} – Moderates across tracks • Programme Chair (& co-chairs): – Decides conference schedule Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 17
  18. 18. Reviewing procedures • Review procedure documents (eg ISCRAM): – Review process: • Overview for conference organizers – Review timeline: • Helps conference organizers schedule activities – Review guidelines: • For reviewers of full, short / work-in-progress, & practitioner papers – Meta-review & final decision: • For meta-reviewers, track chairs, & Scientific Committee – Best (Student) Paper procedure: • For Best Paper sub-committees & conference organizers Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 18
  19. 19. Criteria for reviewing (1) Criterion ISCRAM BNAIC PlanSIG ICIW (Discipline) IS + CRAM AI Planning Cyber/info war Relevance x x x x Significance/contribution x - x x Originality x (full only) x x - Validity x (full only) x x x Clarity/readability x x x x (Others) Best Paper? Award? Method, drawings, abstract, keywords, references Overall score x x x x Reviewer’s confidence x x x - Remarks for author(s) x x x x Remarks for PC x x x - Linköping, 5 Jun 13 19 Tutorial on reviewing
  20. 20. Criteria for reviewing (2) • Relevance: – Papers should be clearly relevant to conference’s subject area, not generalist – ISCRAM (= IS + CRAM): • Technical papers (information systems, computer science, IT) should describe implications for crisis response and/or emergency management • Vice versa for crisis response / emergency management papers – Tips: • Read Call For Papers! • Ensure paper fits into topic or track • Does this year’s conference have special theme? – If so, try to make link to theme in paper (N.B. nice to have) Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 20
  21. 21. Criteria for reviewing (3) • Significance / contribution: – Does paper make a significant contribution to literature? • Significance means contribution opens up (or closes off) previously unexplored lines of research or of development (valorization) – Does paper state the contribution it makes? – Does paper link this contribution to pre-existing literature? – Does paper identify the limitations of this contribution? • From method & from what is outside scope of paper • Limitations can always be topics for further research! – Tips: • Know the relevant literature! • Don’t overclaim, i.e. overstate contribution Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 21
  22. 22. Criteria for reviewing (4) • Originality / novelty: – Ideas must be non-trivial, new & timely, not “more of same” • Case study can be new • Literature survey paper can be new if it “adds value”, eg structuring literature in a new way • Application of established ideas to another field can be new: – Idea may be known in IS literature, but not yet applied to CRAM. – And vice versa - which is why practitioner papers are so important – Tips: • Know the relevant literature! • Where can, exploit multi-disciplinary nature (e.g. IS + CRAM) Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 22
  23. 23. Criteria for reviewing (5) • Validity / soundness / thoroughness: – Is purpose of paper clearly stated? And paper’s scope? – Is research question / hypothesis clearly stated? – Are appropriate methods used? • Is best practice for method followed? (eg case study, literature survey) – Is argument logically sound? Statistics & equations correct? – Is treatment /discussion thorough? • In enough detail for another researcher to reproduce what you did? – Tips: • Ensure paper tells story: – Not necessarily the order in which you did your research! • Reflect on your contribution in context of related literature Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 23
  24. 24. Criteria for reviewing (6) • Clarity / readability / structure: – Well structured? Grammatically correct? Easy to read? – Abbreviations in full on 1st use? Jargon known to readers? – Citations given in full & easy to find? – Can oldies (60+) read graphics without magnifying glass? – Tips: • Apply “magic number of 5 +/- 2” to number of sections • First section should be “Introduction” or “Motivation” • Last section should be “Conclusions & Further Research” • Review relevant literature in 2nd or 2nd -to-last section • Do not exceed page or word limit! • Use spelling & grammar checker! Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 24
  25. 25. How to review (1) • Reviewing is extension of reading paper • Keshav’s three-pass method for reading: – Pass (1): Quick-scan (5-10 mins): • Read title, abstract, & introduction • Read section & sub-section headings (structure) • Glance at equations (if any) • Read conclusions • Glance over references to see which ones you know – Should be able to answer “five Cs”: • Category; context; correctness; contribution, clarity Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 25 Keshav, 2012
  26. 26. How to review (2) – Pass (2): Read paper with more care (1 hour): • Ignore details such as proofs • Jot down key points, or make notes in margin • Look carefully at figures, diagrams, & other illustrations • Mark relevant unread references for further reading • Answer: – What does paper do? (Rationale/motivation, aims, hypothesis) – How does it do it? (Participants, method) – What did it find? (Findings, implications, falsifiable, limitations) Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 26 Keshav, 2012
  27. 27. How to review (3) – Pass (3): Virtually re-create paper (4-5 hours): • Making same assumptions, re-create paper in own way • Compare re-creation with actual paper: – Identify & challenge every statement – Jot ideas down as you go • Self-reflect: watch out for community groupthink / bias • Answer: – Weaknesses: » Implicit assumptions; experimental / analytical errors; missing citations – Strengths: » Presentation technique; support for conclusions; internal efficacy Linköping, 5 Jun 13 27 Keshav, 2012Tutorial on reviewing
  28. 28. How to review (4) • Now add reviewing-specific steps: – Scoring according to reviewing template – Writing “Remarks to authors”: • Briefly summarize paper in own words • State what you think contribution(s) are: – Not those stated by author(s) • Give specific comments based on jottings / margin notes: – Separate major points from minor ones (eg typos) – By relevance; significance; originality; validity; clarity – Justifying your scores • Conclude comments (eg summarize good & bad points) • Recommend modifications Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 28 Roscoe, 2007
  29. 29. How to review (5) • Approaches to reviewing own paper: 1. Write paper & then review it, modifying as needed 2. Write paper, already building in information reviewer needs • I prefer 2nd approach (next 6 slides) • Mindset: Reviewer is always right! – True: modify as reviewer recommends (Relevance, Significance, Originality, & Validity) – False: reviewer misunderstood because draft paper is poorly expressed; express more clearly (Clarity) • You’ll still get Remarks to Authors: – But they should be fewer and less major Linköping, 5 Jun 13 29 Tutorial on reviewing
  30. 30. How to review (6) • How I plan a paper (1/6): – Look at Call For Papers – Have I done research that is worth presenting? • If none, STOP – Which topic / track does it fit into? • If none, STOP – What message do I want to give? • Sketch story (5 plus/minus 2 bullets) – Write single sentence describing purpose of paper: • “The purpose of this paper is to present / survey / show ...” Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 30
  31. 31. How to review (7) • How I plan a paper (2/6): – Extract title from purpose of paper: • This must “sell” your paper! Eg “Tweak the tweet: leveraging proliferation with a prescriptive syntax to support citizen reporting” (Starbird & Stamberger, ISCRAM 2010) – Extract top-level headings from story: • Don’t forget 5 plus/minus 2: 1.Introduction 2.Relevant theory 3.Experiment 4.Discussion 5.Conclusions & Further Research Linköping, 5 Jun 13 31 Tutorial on reviewing
  32. 32. How to review (8) • How I plan a paper (3/6): – Expand 1. Introduction: 1.1 Background (or Motivation) – Identifies “gap” in current Body of Knowledge – Motivates why research is worth doing – Shows relevance to conference & topic / track – Outlines what paper covers, eg “This paper focuses on technical capabilities for cyber warfare.” 1.2 Purpose & scope – Insert one-sentence purpose here – Scope is what your research & this paper does not include, eg “Legal issues are outside the scope of this paper.” 1.3 Paper structure (or Layout) – So reader knows what to expect (sections, appendices) Linköping, 5 Jun 13 32 Tutorial on reviewing
  33. 33. How to review (9) • How I plan a paper (4/6): – Expand 3. Experiment: Eg 3.1 Design; 3.2 Execution; 3.3 Results & analysis – Expand 5. Conclusions & Further Research: (5.1) Summary – Not same as Abstract (5.2) Contribution(s) – Just most important ones – Don’t overstate (5.3) Limitations – From method used – From what is outside scope (5.4) Further research Linköping, 5 Jun 13 33 Tutorial on reviewing
  34. 34. How to review (10) • How I plan a paper (5/6): – Allocate page budget (see CFP or template for limit): – Write Abstract: • Note word limit (in CFP, author instructions, or template): – Two-thirds background & motivation: » Conclude with one-sentence purpose of paper – One-third (intended) structure of paper Linköping, 5 Jun 13 34 Title, abstract & keywords ½ page or 5% Introduction 5% Conclusions & Further Research 5% References 10% (other sections) divide up 75% Tutorial on reviewing
  35. 35. How to review (11) • How I plan a paper (6/6): – Write one-sentence objective for each section: 1. Introduction “The objective of this section is to describe the background, motivate the research, state the purpose and scope of the paper, and outline its structure.” 2. Relevant theory “The objective of this section is to summarize the theory relevant to the content of this paper.” • N.B. To guide writing only; may be deleted once written – Allocate (sub-) sections to co-authors (if any): • In consultation, taking into account roles & abilities Linköping, 5 Jun 13 35 Tutorial on reviewing
  36. 36. Key resources (1) • Overviews (recommended): – RIN, 2010. Peer Review: A guide for researchers. Research Information Network (March), http://www.rin.ac.uk/our- work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/peer- review-guide-researchers. Accessed 2 May 13. * – Wikipedia. 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review. Accessed 2 May 2013 – Rowland, F. 2002. The Peer Review Process: A report to the JISC Scholarly Communications Group. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/rowland.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2013. * Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 40
  37. 37. Key resources (2) • Papers/articles (1/3): – Calcagno, V., Demoinet, E., Gollner, K., Guidi, L., Ruths, D. & de Mazancourt, C. 2012. Flows of Research Manuscripts Among Scientific Journals Reveal Hidden Submission Patterns. Science Magazine, 338, 1065-9 (November) – Cormode, G. 2008. How NOT to Review a Paper: the tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer. SIGMOD Record, 37, 4. * – Griswold, W.G. (not dated). How to Read an Engineering Research Paper. http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~wgg/CSE210/howtoread.html. * • See also link to paperform.pdf. * – Hill, S. & Provost, F. 2003. The Myth of the Double Blind Review? Author identification using only citations. SIGKDD Explorations, 5, 3, 179-184 – Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E. & Davidoff, F. 2002. Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A systematic review. JAMA, 287, 2784-6 Linköping, 5 Jun 13 41 Tutorial on reviewing
  38. 38. Key resources (3) • Papers/articles (2/3): – Kershav, S. 2012. How to Read a Paper. http://blizzard.cs.uwaterloo.ca/keshav/home/Papers/data/07/paper- reading.pdf. (June 26). * • See Ian McLean’s 2012 Literature Review Matrix, based on Kershav, at http://www.psychologyinc.org/2012/06/literature-review-matrix.html. * – Mahoney, M.J. 1977. Publication Prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 2, 161-175 – McCook, A. 2006. Is Peer Review Broken? The Scientist Magazine (February 1) – Roberts. 1999. Scholarly Publishing, Peer Review and the Internet. First Monday, 4, 4 (5 April) – Roscoe, T. 2007. Writing Reviews for System Conferences. http://people.inf.ethz.ch/troscoe/pubs/review-writing.pdf. * Linköping, 5 Jun 13 42 Tutorial on reviewing
  39. 39. Key resources (4) • Papers/articles (3/3): – Smith, R. 2006. Peer Review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med, 99, 178-182 – Spier, R. 2002. The History of the Peer Review Process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 8, 357-8 (August) – Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R. & Black, N. 1998. Effect of Blinding and Unmasking on the Quality of Peer Review: A randomized trial. JAMA, 280, 3, 234-7 – Walt, S.M. 2013. On Writing Well. Foreign Policy (February 15). http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/15/on_writing_well. * • Itself an example of good writing. – Weiss, R. 2005. Many Scientists Admit to Misconduct: Degrees of deteption vary in poll. Washington Post (June 9) Linköping, 5 Jun 13 43 Tutorial on reviewing
  40. 40. Key resources (5) • Journals: – Learned Publishing – Journal of Scholarly Publishing – Journal of American Society for Information Science – Journal of Documentation • Bibliography: – Bailey, C.W. 2011. Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography. www.digital-scholarship.org/sepb/. Version 80 (30 November), accessed 2 May 13 • Learned society: – Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP): www.alpsp.org. Accessed 2 May 13 Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 44
  41. 41. Key resources (6) • Books: – Peek, R.P. & Newby, G.B. (eds). 1996. Scholarly Publishing: The electronic frontier. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA – Page, G., Campbell, R. & Meadows, A.J. 1997. Journal Publishing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK – Meadows, A.J. 1998. Communicating Research. Academic Press, San Diego, CA – Tenopir, C. & King, D.W. 2000. Towards Electronic Journals: Realities for scientists, librarians and publishers. SLA Publishing, Washington DC – Fredrikson, E.H. (ed). 2001. A Century of Scientific Publishing. IOS Publishing, Amsterdam, NL – Abel, R.E. & Newlin, L.W. (eds). 2002. Scholarly Publishing: Books, journals, publishers, and libraries in the twentieth century. John Wiley & Sons, New York Linköping, 5 Jun 13 45 Tutorial on reviewing
  42. 42. Key resources (7) • Wikipedia (English, all accessed 2 May 13): – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed_scientific_journal – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_journal – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_journal – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_publishing • See also Scholarly paper and Peer review sections – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_(publishing) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_failure – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism Linköping, 5 Jun 13 Tutorial on reviewing 46
  43. 43. Exercise for listener • “Beer versus science” as example of open reviewing: – Grim, T. 2008. A Possible Role of Social Activity to Explain Differences in Publication Output Among Ecologists. Oikos, 177, 484-7. http://www.zoologie.upol.cz/osoby/Grim/Grim_Oikos_2008.pdf. * • Inverse linear relation between beer input and publications output – Mack, C.A. 2008. In Defense of Beer-Drinking Scientists. (March 21). http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=119. * – Mack, C.A. 2008. In Defense of my Defense of Beer-Drinking Scientists. (March 27). http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=120. * – Mack, C.A. 2008. More on Beer-Drinking Scientists: A response to Dr Grim. (April 9). http://life.lithoguru.com/index.php?itemid=121. * – Van Noorden, R. 2010. Make Mine a Double. (Sep 15). http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/09/make_mine_a_double.html • Let’s do field research! Linköping, 5 Jun 13 47 Tutorial on reviewing
  44. 44. Any questions? Tim Grant Retired But Active Researcher (R-BAR) tim.grant.iscram@gmail.com +31 (0)638 193 749 With thanks to: Julie Dugdale, Simon French, Mark S Pfaff, Murray Turoff, Arien vd Wal

Notes de l'éditeur

  • © Tim Grant, 2013 5 Jun 13 Linköping: Tutorial on reviewing
  • Linköping: Tutorial on reviewing 5 Jun 13 © Tim Grant, 2013

×