1

In peer-reviewed computer science conferences, there is typically a strict schedule for peer-reviews, e.g., by when to submit reviews, during which period should reviewers discuss.

Question: As a chair, how do I prevent reviewers / PC from "abusing" the time constraints of the conference format in unethical ways?

Example: Three reviewers are given strictly one week to compare their reviews and come up with a joint recommendation. One of the three reviewers does not participate in the discussion, but instead waits until 5 minutes before the deadline of the discussion phase to post an essay-long comment detailing why the one reviewer totally disagrees with the other two without giving them the chance to respond.

1 Answer 1

4

It seems like you should use the same system that the NSF uses when they review grants: have two deadlines. The first deadline is for individual reports, then the discussion follows, then the next deadline is for revised reports based on the discussion. We use the same system in my department when we evaluate other professors for tenure.

2
  • Thank you for the answer. But wouldn't that be three deadlines? One for reports, one for discussion, one for revised reports?
    – mto_19
    Commented Apr 26 at 11:40
  • Sure, you can think of it that way. The NSF has the discussions happen at a fixed time, via a Zoom panel. In our department, the discussions happen during a meeting. So it only feels like two deadlines plus a meeting in between. Commented Apr 26 at 12:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .