The general review process covers submissions (grouped by submission date):
Reviewers provide high-quality reviews for submissions to provide authors with feedback so they may improve their work for presentation or future submission.
Each submission will receive 3 reviews.
All reviews are submitted through EasyChair. Reviewers are considered “Ordinary PC members” in EasyChair.
Only Lightning Talks are anonymous for review. All other submissions covered in this document are not anonymized.
The Track Chairs for a given track will lead any discussion and will make recommendations of acceptance to the Program Chairs for each track.
The following dates describe the timeline for Reviewer work on SIGCSE 2019. Please consider your workload around these dates before accepting a Reviewer invitation.
|Group 1 Timeline Period||Start Date||End Date|
|Bidding||Saturday, September 1, 2018||Thursday, September 6, 2018|
|Review||Friday, September 7, 2018||Saturday, September 22, 2018|
|Discussion & Recommendations||Sunday, September 23, 2018||Wednesday, September 26, 2018|
|Group 2 Timeline Period||Start Date||End Date|
|Review||Thursday, October 25, 2018||Wednesday, November 7, 2018|
|Discussion & Recommendations||Thursday, November 8, 2018||Wednesday, November 14, 2018|
When you receive your invitation to review for SIGCSE 2019, please take a few moments to update your profile and select 3-5 topics that you are most qualified for reviewing. To do so, select SIGCSE 2019 > My topics from the menu.
Please check at most 5 topics! More topics will make it harder for the EasyChair system to make a good set of matches.
Only Group 1 tracks will have a bidding period. If you do not bid, we will use topics to assign submissions for review.
Reviewers will bid on submissions they are interested in reviewing after the submission deadline. Please bid for submissions where the title and abstract are in your area of expertise. Bidding will help with assigning submissions for review that you’re qualified and interested in reviewing!
Before starting your review, you may be asked by the Track Chairs to declare conflicts with any submitting authors. Please do so in a timely manner so we can avoid conflicts during assignment.
As a reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about. When reviewing a submission, consider:
Each track may have their own reviewer guidelines. Please refer to those as you’re completing your review as instructed by the track chair.
Please do not include your preference for acceptance or rejection of a submission in the feedback to the authors. Instead, use the provided radio buttons to make a recommendation based on your summary review and provide any details in the confidential comments to the track chairs. As a reviewer, you will only see a small portion of the submissions and a paper that you recommend for acceptance may be rejected when considering the full set of submissions.
The discussion and recommendation period provides the opportunity for track chairs to discuss reviews and feedback so they can provide the best recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs. We ask that reviewers engage in discussion when prompted by other reviewers or the track chairs by using the Comments feature of EasyChair. During this period you will be able to revise your review based on the discussion, but you are not required to do so.
Track chairs will make a final recommendation to the Program Chairs from your feedback.