Talk:Two-phase Reviewing
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 16:45, 8 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Starting Comments ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 16:49, 8 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ICSE -- JM Next diff → |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| - | '''SIGGRAPH, CHI, ICSE, OOPSLA, SIGCSE''' | + | '''SIGGRAPH, CHI, DAC, OOPSLA, SIGCSE''' |
| :None of these large conferences reported using or considering two-phase reviewing at this time. | :None of these large conferences reported using or considering two-phase reviewing at this time. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''ICSE''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | :ICSE has been using two-phase reviewing since 2004. The details of their review process are described in the survey. | ||
| == Discussion Begins == | == Discussion Begins == | ||
Revision as of 16:49, 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, DAC, OOPSLA, SIGCSE
- None of these large conferences reported using or considering two-phase reviewing at this time.
ICSE
- ICSE has been using two-phase reviewing since 2004. The details of their review process are described in the survey.
