[Sig-l] Reviewing for AM-2013 - THANKS!!

[Kathryn La Barre]

Thanks to all of the SIG officers who responded so promptly to my call for
potential reviewers. Last night I submitted a total of 69 names to
represent all 15 SIGS. Not all of these names were new to the conference
organizers but most of them are! Dick Hill will share your names with those
who are overseeing the tracks. I've put in a request for the SIGs to be a
part of the reviewer identification process henceforth (and that we have
more notice).

This morning, I received six items to review with a June 10 deadline. If
you are selected as a reviewer,  you will receive an invitation to review
within the next week or so. For those of you who are curious about the
process I've put the review guidelines below.

>From the review email:

Deadline: Your reviews are expected by June 10, 2013.  This deadline is
truly important as we need to give notification to authors and then enough
time for them to submit the final version.

Here are a few guidelines for the review process.

  - Approach: Please take a balanced approach when reading the submissions.
You were selected to serve on the committee because
you are an expert in your area.  You may have to review submissions
which are not up to your personal standards but they may be interesting to
attendees of the conference.  So keep an open mind but at the same time we
want a program of quality, therefore weak submissions should be identified.

- Conflict of interest:  As the review process (for papers and posters) is
double-blind, please notify as soon as possible Richard Hill if you realize
by reading the submission that you have a conflict of interest, as we will
need to reassign the submission. You are in conflict of interest if you are
reviewing a submission from :
•       a friend;
•       a relative;
•       a research collaborator;
•       an institutional colleague;
•       a student under your supervision ;
•       a student from your institution.

  - Numerical Scoring: When filling in your review, try not
to be incrementally indecisive (i.e., by scoring most submissions
in the middle of the numerical range).  Please don't equivocate.
Take a stand. Either you think the submission is strong or not.

  - Comments:

We're relying on you to read each submission carefully and provide
constructive feedback to the authors. Each submission has been assigned
three reviewers; we are hoping that each accept/reject decision represents
a consensus, if not program chairs may ask you for more comments.

The feedback you give to authors through the review form will not only help
them improve their submissions, it will also enable the program chairs
to decide whether to accept the submission for presentation at the
conference and subsequent publication in the proceedings. Thus pay
attention to the specific criteria for each submission type and to the
number you assign as your overall recommendation. This is what we will
regard as your ultimate 'say' on the paper. Do not neglect your narrative
review; we use the narrative reviews as support for your numerical ratings.
 Inconsistencies between scoring and reviews will be closely examined by
the conference and program chairs.

Please make sure your suggestions for improvement  are constructive and
respectful, and make sure you specify any changes you would like the
author(s) to make. A good review that identifies both strengths and
weaknesses will guide the authors in revising their submission.

Deadline: Your reviews are expected by June 10, 2013.  This deadline is
truly important as we need to give notification to authors and then enough
time for them to submit the final version.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact one of us.

Many thanks for your efforts and cooperation. It is only with your help
that we can have a conference program that will be interesting both from a
scientific and professional viewpoint and representative of the quality of
the research in our discipline.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sig-l/attachments/20130508/f013bc52/attachment.html