|Reviewing Phase||Start Date||End Date|
|Reviewing||Saturday, October 9, 2021||Wednesday, October 27, 2021|
|Discussion & Recommendations||Thursday, October 28, 2021||Monday, November 1, 2021|
Lightning Talks describe works in progress (tentative or preliminary work), new and untested ideas (ideas for possible work), or opportunities for collaborative work. Presentations of mature work will not be considered. The purpose of a Lightning Talk can be to start a discussion, find collaborators, or receive input and critique about an idea. Proposals are limited to 500 words, including the abstract of 250 words, and will be reviewed with a dual-anonymous process for acceptance. Lightning Talk presentations will be a maximum of 5 minutes each. For virtual presentations, the presenter may provide a pre-recorded video of their presentation.
Dual-Anonymous Review Process
Initial submissions to the Lightning Talks track are reviewed with the dual-anonymous review process, in which authors must anonymize their submissions — thus reviewers (and APCs for papers) are unaware of the author — and reviewers and APCs are anonymous to each other and to the authors. During the discussion of a submission in EasyChair, reviewers can refer to each other by their reviewer number on that submission’s review.
As you write your review, please keep in mind that Lightning Talks are meant to describe works in progress, new ideas or opportunities. Judge the proposal based on the following questions: Does the proposed talk fit into the 5-minute time frame? Is the subject of interest to the SIGCSE TS audience? Does the talk present a timely and innovative idea? Is it clear what the proposer intends to gain from presenting the talk? In the event that a proposal contains a link to a website with supplementary materials, reviewers should not consider these materials in their review as the abstract should be self-contained and sufficient. Please provide constructive feedback and clearly justify your choice of rating to help the authors. A review that gives a low score with no written comments is not helpful to the authors since it simply tells the authors that they have been unsuccessful, with no indication of how or why. Reviewers will be asked to summarize the work, provide their familiarity with the submission topic, describe the expected audience, identify strengths and weaknesses of the submissions, and provide an overall evaluation. Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the program committee to address concerns about the submission. These comments will not be shared with submitting authors.
Here are some tips and good practices for reviewing gathered from the SIGCSE community during SIGCSE TS 2021.
While your review text should clearly support your scores and recommendation, 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 (the authors will not see this) based on your summary review and provide any details that refer to your recommendation directly in the confidential comments to the APC or track chairs. Remember that as a reviewer, you will only see a small portion of the submissions, so one that you recommend for acceptance may be rejected when considering the other reviewer recommendations and the full set of submissions.
The discussion and recommendation period provides the opportunity for the Track Chairs to discuss reviews and feedback so they can provide the best recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs and that the submission is given full consideration in the review process. We ask that Reviewers engage in discussion when prompted by other reviewers, 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.
The Track Chairs will make a final recommendation to the Program Chairs from your feedback.
Reviewers who don’t submit reviews, have reviews with limited constructive feedback, or who submit inappropriate reviews will be removed from the reviewer list (as per SIGCSE policy). Recalcitrant reviewers will be informed of their removal from the reviewer list. Reviewers with repeated offenses (two within a three year period) will be removed from SIGCSE reviewing for three years.