Talk:Two-phase Reviewing
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 16:49, 8 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ICSE -- JM ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 16:52, 8 March 2006 DonnaBaglio (Talk | contribs) Starting Comments Next diff → |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| :ICSE has been using two-phase reviewing since 2004. The details of their review process are described in the survey. | :ICSE has been using two-phase reviewing since 2004. The details of their review process are described in the survey. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''SIGMETRICS ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | :In reviewing, we seem particularly careful to make sure that the paper has at least one reviewer who knows the area very well. If it turns out at the PC meeting that somehow that was not the case, we always get an additional review from someone directly in the area. | ||
| == Discussion Begins == | == Discussion Begins == | ||
Revision as of 16:52, 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.
SIGMETRICS
- In reviewing, we seem particularly careful to make sure that the paper has at least one reviewer who knows the area very well. If it turns out at the PC meeting that somehow that was not the case, we always get an additional review from someone directly in the area.
