L40 — Revision Work Day#
No new theory and no slides. You hold one review of your paper; today you decide what each of its comments is worth, make the changes, and record every decision in the response-to-reviewer table. Everything is due through Teams at the start of L41.
Your review came back through Teams after L39. Start with it open beside your draft.
Triage your review#
Read the review through once before you change anything. Then sort every comment:
Errors — a wrong number, a misapplied model, a claim the analysis does not support, a citation that does not support its claim, a block with no lesson cited. Fix these first; the citation-check findings go at the top of the list.
Gaps against the rubric — a task, figure or result the rubric asks for that the draft lacks or only half-reports.
Clarity, figures and form — a paragraph your reviewer misread, an axis without units, a caption that does not say what to see, a page count over two.
Comments you disagree with — decide on the evidence, not on the tone. A reviewer who misread your method is telling you the method section can be misread.
Spend the period on categories 1 and 2 before you polish.
Write the response table#
Open ResponseToReviewers.tex from the template and give each comment that asks for a change its own row, in the form’s order: lines 1–5 and 8, the citation check, and the single change that would most improve the paper. Lines 6 (your reviewer’s self-check) and 7, and the strongest-element box, need no row. The eight rows are already labeled in the template:
Item — the form’s line (1–5, 8), Cit. for the citation check or Chg. for the single change.
Comment — quote or paraphrase it, with where it pointed.
What I changed (or why not) — the change you made; or, if you made none, the reason and your evidence.
Where — the section, figure, table or page in the final paper, so a grader can find the change.
A good “changed” row is specific enough to check: which figure, what was added. A good “not changed” row gives a reason a reader can weigh — a check you ran, a source that supports your choice, a scope limit you now state in Section V. “Disagree” on its own is not a response. The table is worth 5 points; the words are yours, and AI may typeset the table but not write it.
Final checklist for L41#
Due through Teams at the start of L41:
The paper (PDF) in the IEEE template: at most 2 pages, excluding the References and any appendix; all five sections; the three figures and two tables; every figure cited in the text, with axis units and a caption that says what to see; at least one course lesson from each block, each cited for the claim it supports; any external source vetted in one line in Appendix A.
The response-to-reviewer table (PDF): one row per comment that asks for a change — lines 1–5 and 8, the citation check, the single change.
Your code: every script used for the analysis and the figures, runnable from the issued bundle (
FPToolkit.mand the four CSVs) plus your scripts, in one folder. Test it: copy that folder somewhere new, run it, and check the figures and numbers match the paper.AI transcripts, if you used AI in any way: a copy of, or a link to, every chat, submitted with the code.
HW4 is also due at the start of L41, and Quiz 4 is taken in class.
Late policy#
Late deliverables require coordination with the instructor at least 24 hours before the deadline; non-coordinated late submissions receive a zero.
Materials#
FinalProject_IEEE_Template.zip — includes ResponseToReviewers.tex
Final Project handout (PDF) — the rubric, the deliverables and the rules
Final Project - Peer Review Form.pdf — the form your reviewer used
The scenario files and the starter are on the Final Project page. Next lesson: L41 — Course Wrap-Up.