dbosk
commented
7 years ago Daniel Bosk @dbosk commented a year ago Master "Particular to your abstract we found that it may be the case of narrowing down a bit the scope of the chapter as it feels still a bit too broad." [REVIEWS.md] Edited a year ago
Daniel Bosk @dbosk commented a year ago Master Start with out own work. If time and space permits, add related works. And so on.
Daniel Bosk @dbosk commented a year ago Master Maybe our research isn't interesting, too narrow? Maybe better with a survery over the protesting possibilities? Maybe narrow it down to only the "before" part?
Guillermo Rodríguez Cano @wileeam commented 10 months ago Master @bgre suggests to state in the introduction already that this is focused in oppressive regimes instead of protests in any country (including the oppressive ones). This will narrow down the topic already from the beginning
We should explain our scope and delimitation in the introduction: Will we do a survey of the field? Will we provide an overview of ours and related works? Will we provide an overview of our work only?
From the reviews:
"Second, there is also some unclarity about the nature of the contribution of this article. The authors seem to claim they have themselves developed the PETs they propose for protest ("In this chapter we will describe some privacy-enhancing tools that we have developed and that we believe are useful in the context of protesting" (p. 5)), but afterwards they seem to mainly mobilize a host of tools developed by different people, thus taking them from the state of the art (the reviewer cannot check this given the anonymized nature of the paper).
"I guess in this sense the contribution of this article would reside in mobilizing and presenting existing PET tools for the community of protesters, provide them with a manual so to say."
"At the same time, I think it may be lacking a degree of focus in terms of its purpose. It is unclear to me who its audience is: activists? academics? computer scientists?"