The novelty and reproduction criteria were not really actionable for a reviewer. The paper should state if and how it is novel, or if it reproduces previous results (and any improvements). It also avoids the pitfall of having reviewers rejecting papers because "it is not novel enough" (which is a general review antipattern detailed in the empirical standards (page 5).
The novelty and reproduction criteria were not really actionable for a reviewer. The paper should state if and how it is novel, or if it reproduces previous results (and any improvements). It also avoids the pitfall of having reviewers rejecting papers because "it is not novel enough" (which is a general review antipattern detailed in the empirical standards (page 5).