Talk:Tracking Reviews
From Health of Conferences Committee
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
- 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.
SIGMOD
- SIGMOD has done the following:
- (1) Created a "pipeline" with another major DB conference, VLDB, where some papers rejected at one conference are sent to the next, with their reviews carried over. The original reviewers continue to be involved. This is being done on a limited basis, only for borderline papers where it is felt that a round of author revision could lead to a solid contribution. If this is successful, we might extend the pipeline to include IEEE's ICDE conference as well. The idea is that this will reduce repeated submission of borderline papers. More importantly, we hope this will help good papers with specific problems that can be fixed, much as the journal reviewing process helps in such situations. ...
