Motivation for the SIGCSE Reviewing Study
SIGCSE symposia and conferences follow approach for many conferences and journals
Want sessions interesting, stimulating, high quality
Depend on contributed papers for various technical sessions
Selection depends on a viewing process
Natural Questions Regarding Ratings by Reviewers
To what extent do some reviewers give consistently high or consistently low ratings?
Are ratings affected by such factors as referee gender, nationality, or expertise, or by the paper's format?
Do authors of one paper give consistently high or low ratings to other papers?
How does an overall rating correlate with subscores in areas of technical content, writing quality, originality, and significance?
How does a joint review by a large committee working collaboratively affect the ratings given by that committee?
Some Hoped-for Insights
Original hopes for conference leadership:
Factors to consider in assigning reviewers
How to interpret ratings
Possible hopes for authors:
Clarify fairness of the process
Identify what factors contribute to making papers "good"
created September 2, 2003
last revised October 22, 2003