Easychair How Can I See Submitted Papers With No Assigned Reviewer

Overview

EDAS supports a range of review styles for conferences and journals, from conferences where each paper receives three reviews of the same blazon, to multiple levels, types or iterations of review. For example, there can exist separate review forms for abstract and total paper reviews, or in-depth reviews and meta reviews. (Meta reviews are summaries of in-depth reviews.)

Conferences seem to fall into several common review models:

Single review bike (1 review circular):

Authors submit a full-length (e.g., 6-folio) manuscript by the deadline. The paper is reviewed by, say, 3 reviewers. Authors of accustomed papers are invited to submit a final (proceedings) newspaper by a specified deadline, without another review. The final manuscript is published in the briefing proceedings.

Abstract, then full paper (2 review rounds):

Authors first submit an extended abstract, e.grand., of ane folio, either as patently text or as a PDF file. This abstract is reviewed either past the technical program chairs or one or more than reviewers. Abstracts that laissez passer this stage are labeled as "abstract accustomed", the others every bit "rejected". Authors then submit a full manuscript which is reviewed again, typically with a more than extensive review. After that review cycle, papers are labeled every bit either "rejected" or "accustomed". As before, authors submit the final proceeding newspaper.

Full newspaper, then revision (2 review rounds):

Authors submit a total paper for review, which is reviewed and either accustomed, rejected or requires a pocket-sized or major revision. Papers with revisions are submitted once again, possibly accompanied past a file describing the changes made in response to the first-round reviews, and reviewed by a subset of the original reviewers, possibly with additional reviewers. Later the additional reviews, the newspaper may be rejected or accepted. If accepted, authors submit the concluding publication version.

This model can be implemented in two ways: (1) The chair creates a revision for the pocket-sized/major revision papers, with a new paper number. (2) The chair creates a new review type, copying the reviewers from the kickoff review round to the new review type. The authors of minor/major revision papers submit the last version, merely the newspaper is subject field to rejection or may exist inverse to accept. Auxiliary files can be used to capture the author changes. If accepted, the author may replace the last version of the manuscript.

Abstract, and then total paper, then revision (iii review rounds):

This model builds on the previous i, simply adds a third review cycle for papers that are labeled as requiring a modest or major revision.

At that place are the same two options every bit earlier, with the addition of the abstract submission phase.

Total newspaper, then revision, repeated (N review rounds):

Journals tend to take multi-round review model, where each round yields i of iii decisions: pass up, minor or major revision or accept. If the author is asked to provide a revision, it is reviewed according to the simple review cycle above.

This model is all-time implemented using paper revisions.

Reviews tin exist assigned either manually or automatically, by interests and paper claims ("bids"). Chairs and, if allowed by the conference, TPC members can add any number or reviewers to each paper by going to the chief paper folio or by using the various means of assignments in Reviews:Assign.

Configuration

The basic review configuration is establish at Reviews:Configure, due east.one thousand., who tin serve on the technical program committee or how review reminders are sent. The bodily review forms are then divers in Reviews:Review forms, where you can define as many forms as needed. Review deadlines and other parameters specific to a review form are also configured at that place.

Review forms can have (almost) any number of questions, either with numeric or text answers. Each question tin can be restricted to exist visible merely to some combination of chairs, track chairs, group leaders and authors, amidst others. (A common configuration trouble is that a track chair is granted general read access to reviews, but none of the questions are visible to track chairs.)

Review process

The review process typically goes through the following steps:

1. TPC members pick topics (areas) of interest, designating them equally "of involvement", "neutral", "no interest". These topics are used to limit the number of papers TPC members tin can "merits" (or, every bit some conferences phone call it, "bid") for possible review, as only papers having at least 1 topic "of involvement" and no topics "not of interest" are included.
2. If the conference plans to assign papers automatically, TPC members can claim (bid for) papers, where claiming is short-hand for "I want to review this paper". There are three levels of interest: "review if needed" (lowest), "can review", and "desire to review". In addition, TPC members can mark papers as "cannot review". Papers in that category will not be assigned to that TPC member. For automated consignment, all papers that match the areas of interest are initially placed in the "can review" category. If a TPC member declares no interests, he or she is causeless to be interested in all conference topics and will thus be assigned papers randomly within the tracks he or she is assigned to.
3. Reviews are assigned to the reviewers, either automatically or manually, or both, taking into account topic preferences and conflicts of interest (Reviews:Assign).
4. Reviewers are notified by email (Reviews:Notify reviewers), either receiving i bulletin for each review or i for all reviews. That mode, notifications can be delayed until all reviewers have been assigned, by selecting the initial review state option in the review grade configuration.
5. Reviewers confirm the review. Reviewers are reminded periodically to confirm their reviews, if configured in Reviews:Configure.
6. Reviewers consummate the review or, if permitted, delegate the review to others.
7. Tardy reviewers are reminded (configured at Reviews:Configure).

Reviewers and TPC members

EDAS supports either a two-tier (unmarried-level) or three-tier (two-level) review model, consisting of one or more conference chairs, TPC members and reviewers. In a 2-tier model, the chair assigns reviewers to papers, who then complete or delegate their reviews. In a three-tier model, conference or track chairs assign TPC members to papers manually or automatically, while either the chairs or the TPC members can assign reviewers to papers. For journals, TPC chairs are renamed to editors instead, simply are otherwise equivalent.

Many conferences have but one blazon of review, merely particularly larger conferences may likewise utilise multiple different review types (Reviews:Review forms). Each review type has split up due dates, templates, restrictions on who can assign the reviews, and the number of reviews for each paper and TPC fellow member.

Conferences may use multiple review types to implement meta reviews. Meta reviews are summaries of the other in-depth newspaper reviews. In that approach, each paper is assigned one meta review and, say, three regular reviews. The meta reviewer can be one of the three reviewers, or be a fourth reviewer.

If immune by the briefing configuration, TPC members and reviewers can delegate the review to somebody else, eastward.k., a graduate student working for a kinesthesia member. Delegated reviews can all the same be viewed and edited by the original assigned reviewer; they tin also be reclaimed if the person the review was delegated to fails to consummate the review.

To facilitate TPC meetings for big conferences, TPC members and papers tin exist assigned to TPC groups, with one or more groupleaders. Each newspaper can belong to at most ane TPC grouping, merely each TPC member can vest to any number of TPC groups.

Rail Chairs

Rail chairs are members of the TPC that accept chair-like privileges for papers in ane or more designated tracks for the conference. They tin can assign reviewers manually or automatically, notify reviewers, delete reviewers and view all reviews. They cannot alter briefing parameters, track parameters and email templates.

Group Leaders

TPC members can be designated as groupleaders. They can review papers, but they can also be granted additional privileges (in Reviews:Configure) to assign papers, view reviews and run into reviewer identities. In most cases, grouping leaders but have special privileges for those papers explicitly assigned to the same TPC group as the groupleader.

Assigning Papers to Reviewers

There are several ways to assign papers to TPC members and reviewers. These approaches are complementary, due east.g., you can assign papers to reviewers automatically then later add together additional reviewers manually. Reviews can be assigned in bulk via Reviews:Assign, due east.g., to all session chairs or to specific TPC members. Alternatively, you tin assign reviews for each paper by going to the paper page and using the push side by side to the "Reviews" heading.

Note that you need to starting time configure the review questions for your conference via Reviews:Review forms. Each review type can designate who can assign those reviews.

Conflicts of Interest

TPC members can declare conflicts of interest by adding and deleting names in a list. When creating a new user account, the list of conflicts is initially populated by all other EDAS users that share the aforementioned not-generic email domain, share the same proper name, accept been co-authors or have the same affiliation. When reviewers merits ("bid") papers for review, EDAS will omit papers where one or more of the authors is on the reviewer'due south disharmonize-of-interest list. For manual assignment, it will not assign such papers.

Assigning Reviewers and TPC Members Automatically

TPC members are sent an email (People:Email) containing instructions and the {Merits} placeholder. (To employ a placeholder, include it in the message text.) From the link independent in the e-mail, TPC members can then merits a list of papers. At that place is no inherent borderline, simply evidently claims submitted after the assignment is run are not taken into account. The list shown to TPC members is limited to papers that match at to the lowest degree i topic of involvement; papers that incorporate a topic in the "not of interest" list are omitted. Information technology also excludes papers where there is a known disharmonize of interest. If TPC members are assigned to specific tracks, just papers in their rail are shown. TPC members tin assign each paper into 4 categories, namely papers that they would similar to review, can review, are willing to review if needed and cannot review. Reviewers are only assigned papers from the first three categories.

TPC members can be assigned to a particular rails and will simply exist able to claim and review papers from their track.

Chairs and track chairs can see the number of claims for each TPC member via People:TPC. Clicking on the name in that list leads to the person's overview page, which also shows the claims.

The automated review consignment has four goals: (one) every paper receives the required number of reviews; (two) no TPC member reviews more than the maximum review load; (three) the TPC members most interested in the newspaper are assigned as reviewers; (four) the review load of TPC members is roughly equal. The tertiary and fourth objective are not ever achievable at the aforementioned time, so the automated assignment mechanism allows the chair to cull whether to outset consider TPC interest or favor equal consignment. Equally a third option, the algorithm can besides utilize a weighted combination of the two. When load or interest are equal between two TPC candidate reviewers, the TPC reviewer with the college involvement or lower load is always chosen.

The algorithm assigns papers up to the specified maximum number of reviews to TPC members. Each paper is assigned reviewers in plow, starting with the paper with the smallest number of claims. The assignment algorithms sorts papers with the same number of claims randomly, and thus the assignment tin can differ if re-run.

If a TPC member does not claim any papers, they are assigned based on their alleged interests. If a TPC member does non indicate whatsoever interests, they are assumed to be interested in all topics and thus can exist assigned whatsoever random paper in the conference.

To assign reviews based on claims, go to Reviews:Assign 'automatically based on claims'.

Notifying reviewers

The TPC member or reviewer will receive an email asking him to review the paper. The TPC member or reviewer tin accept or turn down this invitation. Once he has accustomed, he volition be sent another email containing detailed review instructions.

Reviewers and TPC members tin can e'er check their EDAS home page or My reviews tab to detect the papers that they take been assigned.

Conferences tin can exist configured for 2 kinds of review notifications. Reviewers can receive an e-mail notification for each review they have been asssigned, or a single email if i or more new reviews have been assigned. For the latter, they need to consult their EDAS review listing to make up one's mind which reviews they are responsible for.

Delegating Reviews

If allowed by configuration, both a TPC member and a reviewer can consul ("hand off") their review to another person. They remain listed as the original reviewer for the paper and can check the status of the review and view the review itself once it is done. In the new interface, somebody who has been delegated the review cannot further consul it; if he or she refuses the review, it reverts dorsum to the original reviewer.

Reminding Reviewers

Reviewers are reminded automatically or manually via Reviews:Reminders. Reminders are sent to reviewers that have not yet confirmed their review or where the review is near due or across due. The reminder ("nag") interval and the warn-ahead period are configured in Reviews:Configure. Reminders for overdue reviews tin exist sent either in one bulletin for each paper or in i bulletin for each tardy reviewer, depending on which email template is defined. You can also ship one message per reviewer to reviewers that take non yet confirmed all their reviews, via People:Email.

Review Visibility

Review visibility is controlled in two places: the conference configuration at Briefing:Configure, Permissions ("read reviews (beyond the reviews person has written") determines what roles can read reviews, in general. Each review question tin then make up one's mind which roles have access, via Reviews:Review forms, "Visibility".

alexandertrodforner.blogspot.com

Source: https://edas.info/doc/reviews.html

Share this post