The document evaluates a scientific paper focused on social network security and data harvesting through a tool called social snapshots. It assesses the paper's originality, significance, technical soundness, related work, and readability, finding that while the ideas are novel, the technical execution has issues, and the paper lacks thorough explanation of some concepts. The paper is well-structured but has a poorly summarizing abstract and some unclarified technical terms.

1. How to evaluate the Scientific Paper?
(Paper as Example)
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

2. Outline
 Overview
 Significance and originality
 Technical Soundness
 Related Work
 Readability
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

3. Overview
 What's the paper all about?
 Social Network Security,
 Harvesting data from Social Network by (Social
Snapshots tools).
 What are the key contributions?
 Build Social Snapshots tool.
 What's the main message?
 The possibility of penetrating the social network.
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

4. Significance and originality
 Are the ideas novel/original?
 Novel method for harvesting data from SN (Social
Snapshots tool).
 Are the contributions significant?
 Yes, significant for security research and in the
filed of digital forensics.
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

5. Technical Soundness
 Are the ideas presented technically correct?
 No, All paper discussed the (Social Snapshots)design***
 Are the proofs accurate?
 Partly, implemented a prototype for Facebook*
 Is the research approach correct?
 Violate security privacy***
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

6. Related Work
 Is the paper respect to related work?
 Yes .
 Is there a brief survey of related work?
 Yes, about forensic frameworks.
 Do the authors explain similarities and
differences with previous work?
 No, just (shortcomings for pervious work,
contributions for paper)**.
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

7. Readability
 Is the paper well structured?
 Yes. (Abstract, Introduction, Background, Design,..)
 Does the abstract properly accurately
summarize the paper?
 No, Did not mention many of the points (Design,
Framework,….)***.
 Do the introduction and conclusion clearly
explain the contributions and the message?
 Yes.
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

8. Readability ….. (Cont.)
 Is the flow of ideas easy to follow?
 Partly. *
 Is the paper well written?
 Yes .
 Are all the technical terms and abbreviations
explained?
 No, i.e (JSON, CSV, GNU, AJAX, EXIF,…..)***
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

9. Readability ….. (Cont.)
 Are there important grammatical errors?
 No.
 Are there a lot of typos?
 Applicationspecific(row17- abstract [Application
specific])**,
 Commited (Row2-background [Committed])**,
 ….. etc
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

10. Plagiarism Detection &
Prevention Technology
Ithenticate &Trunitin (Tools)
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri

11. Thanks
Papered by :Dr. Hamdan M. Al-Sabri