|Reviewing Phase||Start Date||End Date|
|Bidding||Saturday, August 14, 2021||Wednesday, August 18, 2021|
|Reviewing||Thursday, August 19 2021||Wednesday, September 1, 2021|
|Discussion & Recommendations||Thursday, September 2, 2021||Friday, September 10, 2021|
Workshops provide an in-depth review of, or introduction to, a topic of interest, and should provide participants with materials and/or ideas that are immediately useful. To this end, workshop presenters should provide participants with handouts, online materials, or other tangible documents/ artifacts outlining and/or supporting the workshop material.
Single-Anonymous Review Process
Initial submissions to the Workshops track are reviewed with the single-anonymous review process, where the submissions are not anonymized but reviewers 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.
SIGCSE Technical Symposium workshop proposals are reviewed within EasyChair. Please ensure that you have followed all of the guidelines in the General Review Process.
As stated in the general review guidelines, “[r]eviewers provide high-quality reviews for submissions to provide authors with feedback so they may improve their work for presentation or future submission[s].” As such, please ensure that all criticism is phrased in a constructive manner.
Your overall recommendation should focus on significance and relevance, anticipated interest, and quality. In assessing significance and relevance, your primary resource should be the “Significance and Relevance of the Topic” section of the proposal. Similarly, in assessing anticipated interest, you should pay particular attention to the “Expected Audience” section. Finally, in assessing quality, you should consider all sections except “Space and Enrollment Restrictions” and “Audio/Visual Requirements.” The program and track chairs will consider these sections and the availability of appropriate facilities, as well as feedback on, and attendance at, similar workshops that have been offered in previous years
In addition, feedback on, and attendance at, similar workshops that have been offered in previous years may be taken into account. This is particularly relevant for workshops that propose repeating or extending a previously offered workshop.
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.