As you may know, SIGCSE strives for high-quality reviews for submissions to provide authors with feedback so they may improve their work for presentation or future submission. To that end, we strive to have each submission receive 5 reviews. In addition to these reviews, each submission and its reviews will be carefully meta-reviewed by a member of the program committee.
Each paper and its reviews will be carefully meta-reviewed by an Associate Program Chair (APC). The Associate Program Chairs, denoted as “Senior PC” members in EasyChair, are responsible for promoting discussion among the reviewers during the discussion phase until the reviewers and APC lead agree on a recommendation about whether the paper should be accepted. The APC member then submits that recommendation to the Program Chairs. The APC and Program Chairs work together to select the final papers. Please note that the numerical scores on each paper are NOT the only considerations for paper acceptance. Novelty, balance of perspectives, diversity, and space/time considerations are also important.
For panels, special sessions, workshops, posters, demos, lightning talks, and BOFs, each submission type has a separate chair/wrangler as part of the Symposium’s program committee. The respective chair/wrangler for each submission type is in charge of managing the corresponding reviews, and will work together with the program chairs to select the final submissions for acceptance. As with papers, please note that the numerical scores on each submission are NOT the only considerations for acceptance. Novelty, balance of perspectives, diversity, and space/time considerations are also important.
As a reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you, and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about, what its strengths and weaknesses are, how you think it will contribute to an outstanding SIGCSE 2017 program and experience for attendees, as well as how it brings new ideas to the field and practitioners of computer science education. At the end of the reviewing phase, we ask that you read the other reviews for your submission, and engage in discussion using the Comments feature in EasyChair, until all reviewers have come to a consensus on whether the paper should be accepted or not.
Reviewer assignments summarize the dates when reviews are due and when discussion concludes. Please be sure to complete all review assignments within the time specified, since acceptance notifications must be returned to authors on schedule.