Talk:Tracking Reviews
From Health of Conferences Committee
| Revision as of 19:43, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 19:51, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| conference to the journal. | conference to the journal. | ||
| - | qqq | + | '''SIGUCCS''' |
| + | :tracking reviews of rejected papers from conference to conference as is done in journal reviewing - We don't have a formal mechanism for this (which we think is a good idea!) but since several folks serve on the program committee year after year there is probably some informal check on this. Also, acceptance of a paper is tied to presentation at the conference. | ||
| qqq | qqq | ||
| == Discussion Begins == | == Discussion Begins == | ||
Revision as of 19:51, 28 February 2006
To add your comment to this discussion, please click the + sign tab above. Like an email message, you can then contribute:
- a subject (use subject Re: FOO to continue a discussion of FOO)
- message body
- (optionally) your name.
Starting Comments
SIGGRAPH uses a form of voluntary review tracking. Authors can voluntarily request that their reviews of a rejected paper be forwarded to other venues, including next year's conference. They can then write a cover letter indicating how they addressed the reviewers' concerns. The hope is that this makes subsequent reviewing much easier. The scheme is voluntary so as to give authors the chance to escape from reviewers they may judge as biased or uninformed.
In a variant of this scheme, some authors are given a conditional accept to ACM TOG based on their conference-submission reviews. This is typically done for those small number of papers that are of high quality, but not quite complete. In effect, it means that the conference reviewing is the first round of a standard journal review, hence it's a form of review tracking from the conference to the journal.
SIGUCCS
- tracking reviews of rejected papers from conference to conference as is done in journal reviewing - We don't have a formal mechanism for this (which we think is a good idea!) but since several folks serve on the program committee year after year there is probably some informal check on this. Also, acceptance of a paper is tied to presentation at the conference.
qqq
