A seminar report is a short review paper (some 10-15 pages): you explain some interesting results in your own words. A typical seminar report will consist of the following parts:
- an informal introduction,
- a formally precise definition of the problem that is studied,
- a brief overview of very closely related work - here you might cite approx. 3–10 papers and explain their main contributions,
- a more detailed explanation of one or two interesting results, with examples, and
Superficially, your report should look like a typical scientific article. However, it will not contain any new scientific results, just a survey of previously published work.
Review of Seminar Report
Submit a complete and finished version of your report for peer-review. A drafty version makes the reviewers' work unpleasant. The reviewers will be asked to comment on and evaluate (on a scale from 1 to 5) the following aspects:
1. RELEVANCE AND FOCUS
Does the report do a good job of summarizing some of the key contributions of the work(s) it is based on? Has the focus of the report been well chosen? Does the report present enough details to understand what it is about and the key technical contents, while at the same time not giving too many technical details so that the main message is lost? Does the report explain (in the introduction / conclusions / review of related work) how the discussed content fits the "big picture", i.e., how the discussed content is situated more broadly in the context of the original works?
2. ORIGINALITY, OWN CONTRIBUTIONS
Does the report do a good job in explaining the original contributions in own words (rather than directly copying passages from the original works without exhibiting own understanding or insights)? Are additional references beyond the main original work appropriately referenced and discussed? Can you suggest further related articles to discuss? Are original examples of the key concepts and technical contents given appropriately?
3. QUALITY OF PRESENTATION
Is the report clearly written?
Is it well structured?
Is it easy to read (considering the complexity of the topic)?
Is the language good?
Are enough examples and intuition given to easily grasp the main technical terminology and contributions discussed?
4. OVERALL EVALUATION
Overall, does the report succeed (considering all of the above) in giving a well thought through and proper overview of its subject of study, or does it need to be significantly revised to reach this goal? Evaluate with one of the following:
A solid report, does not need revising
Minor revision needed
Major revision needed
Concretely, what are the main parts that could be revised to improve on the current version of the report?
5. REVIEWER'S CONFIDENCE
How much time did you put into writing this review, including the time used to read the report and other background articles (in hours)? How confident are you about your written assessment overall (very confident - somewhat confident - made educated guesses) and why?
The following elements are required:
- Giving a preliminary topic presentation (~5 min) during period I
- Giving a seminar presentation (~40 min) on your topic during period II
- Acting as an opponent for the presentation of one other student
- Active participation in the seminar meetings
- Writing a seminar report (~15 pages) on your topic to accompany the presentation
- Peer-reviewing of seminar reports of two other students
- Revising your seminar report based on the reviewers' comments
Grading (at scale 1-5) is based on an overall assessment of all the required components.
An ability to give scientific presentations. An ability to peer-review and give feedback on written work and on presentations. Improved scientific writing skills on computational biology. In-depth theoretical understanding of an advanced topic in genomic data science and computational biology.