Demos Review Guidelines
Review Timeline
| 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 |
Overview
Demos provide a way to showcase an educational tool or project in a live setting. Not designed to be sales pitches, demonstrations are a way for the community to see the relevance, potential, and innovation of the tool and allow time for discussion with its creator.
Since SIGCSE TS 2022 is planned to be held as an on-site event, Demos will take place during break periods and will last 45 minutes. This follows the Demo format as used traditionally until the SIGCSE TS 2020. Thus physical presence of at least one of the presenters at the conference site is mandatory. However, we expect there will be virtual attendees as well. The proposals must clearly state how the Demo would be run on-site and either suggest a plan to accommodate remote attendees or explain why this would not be feasible.
Single-Anonymous Review Process
Initial submissions to the Demos 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.
Review Guidelines
As you write your review, please keep in mind that the Demos are meant to be interactive. Do the authors describe how they plan to engage with attendees? Do the proposed activities fit into the 45-minute time frame? Are the timing details given and reasonable? Have the authors considered the situation of attendees arriving late and/or attending virtually? Is the subject of interest to the SIGCSE TS audience? Does the Demo satisfy a timely need?
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.
Discussion
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.
Recalcitrant Reviewers
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.