Talk:Two-phase Reviewing

From Health of Conferences Committee

Revision as of 16:45, 8 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Large conferences data -- JM ← Previous diff		Revision as of 16:45, 8 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Starting Comments Next diff →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:The only change we have made, starting with SIGITE 06, is to drop the requirement that authors first submit abstracts. Instead, we will be reviewing full papers only. The primary reason for this change has not been a problem with reviewer load. Rather, there is a feeling that potentially good papers were rejected because of poor abstracts.		:The only change we have made, starting with SIGITE 06, is to drop the requirement that authors first submit abstracts. Instead, we will be reviewing full papers only. The primary reason for this change has not been a problem with reviewer load. Rather, there is a feeling that potentially good papers were rejected because of poor abstracts.
		+
	'''SIGGRAPH, CHI, ICSE, OOPSLA, SIGCSE'''		'''SIGGRAPH, CHI, ICSE, OOPSLA, SIGCSE'''

---

Revision as of 16:45, 8 March 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

This is more negatively, called quick rejection. Papers must pass an initial review by two or three reviewers before being circulated for a full complement of five or six reviews.

SIGITE

The only change we have made, starting with SIGITE 06, is to drop the requirement that authors first submit abstracts. Instead, we will be reviewing full papers only. The primary reason for this change has not been a problem with reviewer load. Rather, there is a feeling that potentially good papers were rejected because of poor abstracts.

SIGGRAPH, CHI, ICSE, OOPSLA, SIGCSE

None of these large conferences reported using or considering two-phase reviewing at this time.

Discussion Begins