After Reviews Are In

Personal.AfterReviewsAreIn History

Show minor edits - Show changes to output

Changed lines 7-10 from:
Immediately: Book your flight and reserve the hotel if you haven't already done so! See http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/Personal/SC_travel_final.pdf

'''Wed 10/29: Reviews due back from reviewers''' \\
'''Wed 10/29: Track missing reviews & quickly resolve
'''
to:
'''Immediately:'''
Added lines 9-13:
Book your flight and reserve the hotel if you haven't already done so! See [[http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/Personal/SC_travel_final.pdf ]]

'''Wed 10/29: Reviews due back from reviewers''' \\
'''Wed 10/29: Track missing reviews & quickly resolve'''
----
Changed lines 9-11 from:
Wed 10/29: Reviews due back from reviewers
Wed 10/29: Track missing reviews & quickly resolve
----------------------------------------------------
to:
'''Wed 10/29: Reviews due back from reviewers''' \\
'''Wed
10/29: Track missing reviews & quickly resolve'''
----
Changed lines 17-19 from:
Wed 10/29: Initiate reviewer discussion as needed
Wed
10/29 - Nov 3: Write meta-reviews
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to:
'''Wed 10/29: Initiate reviewer discussion as neede'''d \\
'''Wed
10/29 - Nov 3: Write meta-reviews'''
----
Changed lines 22-33 from:
Discussion: If there are significant disagreements between reviewers, you may wish to initiate a discussion among them to see if this can assist you in resolving these. As well, if there are significant differences in reviewer scoring, you may want to ask them if they can reach a concensus by adjusting their scores. However, reviewers should not feel pressured into changing their scores or opinions if they do not want to.

The meta-review: Meta-reviews are primarily a summary description of the external reviews indicating points where the reviews agree and disagree. If reviews disagree you may wish to indicate which conflicting arguments you feel are more persuasive or points should be weighted more heavily (but remember that the reviewers will see your meta-review also). The score you give for the meta-review should normally reflect the underlying reviews. As a guide you should likely start with the average of the review scores and then think about what adjustments from that might be justified based on resolving conflicts and weighting of the importance of particular points raised. We are asking you to use your expert judgment here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to add your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section within the meta-review, i.e., beginning with 'My personal opinion'.

Some tips for writing a meta-review. Authors have put quite a bit of work in it, so having feedback done in a constructive and positive voice will be better received than one that says only negative things. That is, always find something positive to say about the paper, even if you are going to recommend rejection. One method is to start your meta-review by summarizing what authors liked, before you get into reasons why a paper may be rejected.

A note about expertise. There is a tendancy for experts to under-rate themselves (i.e., they may say 'knowledgeable' when you know they are expert), and for novices to over-rate themselves. Consider your personal knowledge of reviewers in judging how much weight to put on their reviews as well as their self-rated report. For the author's sake, if a reviewer under-reports their expertise, you may include a note that says 'even though reviewer X rated themselves as knowledgeable, they are actually an expert in the field'.


Mon 11/3: Hard deadline for all reviews (including meta-, replacement, and additional reviews)
Tues 11/4: Reviews and meta-reviews released to authors for rebuttal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
to:
'''Discussion:''' If there are significant disagreements between reviewers, you may wish to initiate a discussion among them to see if this can assist you in resolving these. As well, if there are significant differences in reviewer scoring, you may want to ask them if they can reach a concensus by adjusting their scores. However, reviewers should not feel pressured into changing their scores or opinions if they do not want to.

'''The meta-review:''' Meta-reviews are primarily a summary description of the external reviews indicating points where the reviews agree and disagree. If reviews disagree you may wish to indicate which conflicting arguments you feel are more persuasive or points should be weighted more heavily (but remember that the reviewers will see your meta-review also). The score you give for the meta-review should normally reflect the underlying reviews. As a guide you should likely start with the average of the review scores and then think about what adjustments from that might be justified based on resolving conflicts and weighting of the importance of particular points raised. We are asking you to use your expert judgment here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to add your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section within the meta-review, i.e., beginning with 'My personal opinion'.

'''Some tips for writing a meta-review.''' Authors have put quite a bit of work in it, so having feedback done in a constructive and positive voice will be better received than one that says only negative things. That is, always find something positive to say about the paper, even if you are going to recommend rejection. One method is to start your meta-review by summarizing what authors liked, before you get into reasons why a paper may be rejected.

'''A note about expertise.''' There is a tendancy for experts to under-rate themselves (i.e., they may say 'knowledgeable' when you know they are expert), and for novices to over-rate themselves. Consider your personal knowledge of reviewers in judging how much weight to put on their reviews as well as their self-rated report. For the author's sake, if a reviewer under-reports their expertise, you may include a note that says 'even though reviewer X rated themselves as knowledgeable, they are actually an expert in the field'.


'''Mon 11/3: Hard deadline for all reviews (including meta-, replacement, and additional reviews)'''\\
'''
Tues 11/4: Reviews and meta-reviews released to authors for rebuttal'''
----
Changed lines 36-38 from:
Tues 11/4: Preliminary "discuss" status determined (based on score cut offs and AC input)
Wed 11/5: SCs assign "discuss" papers to 2ACs for review
-----------------------------------------------------------
to:
'''Tues 11/4: Preliminary "discuss" status determined (based on score cut offs and AC input)'''\\
'''
Wed 11/5: SCs assign "discuss" papers to 2ACs for review'''
----
Changed lines 40-46 from:
- We will send you a note in a few days with these cutoffs.
- Your Sub-Committee Chair will then assign further papers to you as a 2AC

Mon 11/10: Author rebuttals due
Tues 11/11: Initiate reviewer discussion as needed
Tues 11/11: Review rebuttals, possibly move papers to "discuss" and recruit 2AC reviewer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to:
* We will send you a note in a few days with these cutoffs.
* Your Sub-Committee Chair will then assign further papers to you as a 2AC

'''Mon 11/10: Author rebuttals due'''\\
'''
Tues 11/11: Initiate reviewer discussion as needed''' \\
'''Tues
11/11: Review rebuttals, possibly move papers to "discuss" and recruit 2AC reviewer'''
----
Changed lines 50-52 from:
Mon 11/26: 2AC reviews due
Mon 12/1: Updated meta-reviews and final "discuss" status due
---------------------------------------------------------------
to:
'''Mon 11/26: 2AC reviews due'''\\
'''
Mon 12/1: Updated meta-reviews and final "discuss" status due'''
----
Changed lines 56-57 from:
Thu 12/4: PC meeting in Boston
-------------------------------
to:
'''Thu 12/4: PC meeting in Boston'''
----
Changed lines 61-64 from:
Fri 12/5: Post-meeting finalization of feedback to authors (done in Boston if possible)
Tue 12/8: Materials certified by ACs as ready to go back to authors
Wed 12/9: Reviews and decisions returned to authors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
to:
'''Fri 12/5: Post-meeting finalization of feedback to authors (done in Boston if possible)'''\\
'''
Tue 12/8: Materials certified by ACs as ready to go back to authors'''\\
'''
Wed 12/9: Reviews and decisions returned to authors'''
----
Changed line 71 from:
Scott Hudson and Saul Greenberg, papers co-chairs
to:
Scott Hudson and Saul Greenberg, papers co-chairs \\
Changed lines 24-31 from:
The meta-review: Meta-reviews are primarily a summary description of the external reviews indicating points where the reviews agree and disagree. If reviews disagree you may wish to indicate which conflicting
arguments you feel are more persuasive or points should be weighted more heavily (but remember that
the reviewers will see your meta-review also). The score you give for the meta-review should normally
reflect the underlying reviews. As a guide you should likely start with the average of the review scores
and then think about what adjustments from that might be justified based on resolving conflicts and
weighting of the importance of particular points raised. We are asking you to use your expert judgment
here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to add your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section within the meta-review, i.e., beginning with 'My personal opinion'.
to:
The meta-review: Meta-reviews are primarily a summary description of the external reviews indicating points where the reviews agree and disagree. If reviews disagree you may wish to indicate which conflicting arguments you feel are more persuasive or points should be weighted more heavily (but remember that the reviewers will see your meta-review also). The score you give for the meta-review should normally reflect the underlying reviews. As a guide you should likely start with the average of the review scores and then think about what adjustments from that might be justified based on resolving conflicts and weighting of the importance of particular points raised. We are asking you to use your expert judgment here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to add your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section within the meta-review, i.e., beginning with 'My personal opinion'.
Changed lines 28-35 from:
A note about expertise. There is a tendancy for experts to under-rate themselves (i.e., they may say 'knowledgeable' when you know they are expert, and for novices to over-rate themselves. Consider your personal knowledge of reviewers in judging how much weight to put on their reviews as well as their self-rated report. For the author's sake, if a reviewer under-reports their expertise, you may include a note that says 'even though reviewer X rated themselves as knowledgeable, they are actually an expert in the field'.


Around here: Thoughts about Best Paper Nominees
------------------------------------------------
Look at your papers. See if any are worth recommending as a best paper nominee. We will send more on this later.
to:
A note about expertise. There is a tendancy for experts to under-rate themselves (i.e., they may say 'knowledgeable' when you know they are expert), and for novices to over-rate themselves. Consider your personal knowledge of reviewers in judging how much weight to put on their reviews as well as their self-rated report. For the author's sake, if a reviewer under-reports their expertise, you may include a note that says 'even though reviewer X rated themselves as knowledgeable, they are actually an expert in the field'.
Changed lines 34-41 from:
All reviews and meta-reviews (with scores) will be released to authors on this date to help them prepare
a rebuttal. Rebuttals allow authors to counter factual errors in the reviews, so it's important that the
authors are able to see all the external reviews at this point. Note that after this point, since the authors
will have seen your meta-review it is probably best to make all changes as additions to the review. If
you end up adjusting the score on the meta-review after this point (e.g., based on the author's rebuttal)
you should remember that the author knows this is a change and add an explicit explanation of why this
was done to the meta-review.
to:
All reviews and meta-reviews (with scores) will be released to authors on this date to help them prepare a rebuttal. Rebuttals allow authors to counter factual errors in the reviews, so it's important that the authors are able to see all the external reviews at this point. Note that after this point, since the authors will have seen your meta-review it is probably best to make all changes as additions to the review. If you end up adjusting the score on the meta-review after this point (e.g., based on the author's rebuttal) you should remember that the author knows this is a change and add an explicit explanation of why this was done to the meta-review.
Changed lines 39-41 from:
Just after releasing papers to authors for rebuttal, the papers chairs will determine cutoff lines for
papers which will be by default accepted or rejected without discussion at the PC meeting. Cutoffs will
be based on score average and variance. In addition you may request discussion for papers which wouldn't normally receive it if you feel this is justified. All papers which are to be discussed at the PC meeting need to have an additional AC present who has also reviewed the paper. A secondary AC for all these papers will be assigned by your subcommittee chair at this point. 2AC reviews are full reviews much like external reviews.
to:
Just after releasing papers to authors for rebuttal, the papers chairs will determine cutoff lines for papers which will be by default accepted or rejected without discussion at the PC meeting. Cutoffs will be based on score average and variance. In addition you may request discussion for papers which wouldn't normally receive it if you feel this is justified. All papers which are to be discussed at the PC meeting need to have an additional AC present who has also reviewed the paper. A secondary AC for all these papers will be assigned by your subcommittee chair at this point. 2AC reviews are full reviews much like external reviews.
Changed lines 47-54 from:
You should look at all rebuttals. If you find that the rebuttal raises important points you may wish to
change previously non-discussed paper to a discussed paper. In that case you should recruit a
secondary AC for the paper. (In general, any paper discussed at the PC meeting needs to have at least
two people in the room who have read it -- it is your responsibility to ensure this is the case). If there
are points in the rebuttal that need discussion you may also initiate additional discussion among the
reviewers at this point.
to:
You should look at all rebuttals. If you find that the rebuttal raises important points you may wish to change previously non-discussed paper to a discussed paper. In that case you should recruit a secondary AC for the paper. (In general, any paper discussed at the PC meeting needs to have at least two people in the room who have read it -- it is your responsibility to ensure this is the case). If there are points in the rebuttal that need discussion you may also initiate additional discussion among the reviewers at this point.
Changed lines 54-59 from:
additional changes (most likely additions) to your meta-reviews. Again, if you end up changing scores
based on these updates it is important that you explicitly explain this in the meta-review. The final
status of whether the paper is to be discussed at the PC meeting should be established at this point.
This will happen either via the automatic cutoff points or your explicit request to discuss a paper (as
marked on the meta-review form).
to:
additional changes (most likely additions) to your meta-reviews. Again, if you end up changing scores based on these updates it is important that you explicitly explain this in the meta-review. The final status of whether the paper is to be discussed at the PC meeting should be established at this point. This will happen either via the automatic cutoff points or your explicit request to discuss a paper (as marked on the meta-review form).
Changed lines 58-60 from:
Additional details about the conduct of the PC meeting will be provided separately. Please plan to arrive
Wednesday afternoon or evening so we can start work first thing Thursday morning. Work will continue
until 1:30pm Friday. Please don't plan a departure that would require you to leave the meeting early
to:
Additional details about the conduct of the PC meeting will be provided separately. Please plan to arrive Wednesday afternoon or evening so we can start work first thing Thursday morning. Work will continue until 1:30pm Friday. Please don't plan a departure that would require you to leave the meeting early
Changed lines 66-69 from:
authors and mark in the system when this is ready to be released to the authors. This needs to happen
fairly quickly to meet our schedule, so you probably want to try to have most or all of this done before
you leave Boston. At this stage it is important that you provide information to the authors that enables
them to understand why the decision that was made was made. For conditionally accepted papers you
to:
authors and mark in the system when this is ready to be released to the authors. This needs to happen fairly quickly to meet our schedule, so you probably want to try to have most or all of this done before you leave Boston. At this stage it is important that you provide information to the authors that enables them to understand why the decision that was made was made. For conditionally accepted papers you
Changed lines 22-23 from:
Discussion: If there are significant disagreements between reviewers, you may wish to initiate a discussion among them to see if this can assist you in resolving these. As well, if there are significant differences in reviewer scoring, you may want to ask them if they can reach a concensus by adjusting their scores. However, reviewers should not feel pressured into changing their scores or opinions if they do not want to.
to:
Discussion: If there are significant disagreements between reviewers, you may wish to initiate a discussion among them to see if this can assist you in resolving these. As well, if there are significant differences in reviewer scoring, you may want to ask them if they can reach a concensus by adjusting their scores. However, reviewers should not feel pressured into changing their scores or opinions if they do not want to.
Added lines 34-36:
A note about expertise. There is a tendancy for experts to under-rate themselves (i.e., they may say 'knowledgeable' when you know they are expert, and for novices to over-rate themselves. Consider your personal knowledge of reviewers in judging how much weight to put on their reviews as well as their self-rated report. For the author's sake, if a reviewer under-reports their expertise, you may include a note that says 'even though reviewer X rated themselves as knowledgeable, they are actually an expert in the field'.
Changed lines 12-13 from:
There are only ~3 days of extra time after the deadline for reviews to allow you to round up final missing reviewers from reviewers who have let you down. You may even have to find last minute replacements for non-responding reviewers. Finding these last minute people (who must turn around a review in a few days) will require begging, arm-twisting, calling in favours, etc. However, we really need 3 external reviews for every paper going into rebuttal on 11/4. But some ground rules:
to:
There are only ~3 days of extra time after the deadline for reviews to allow you to round up final missing reviewers from reviewers who have let you down, or reviewers who have (in your opinion) supplied a completely inadequate review. You may even have to find last minute replacements for non-responding reviewers. Finding these last minute people (who must turn around a review in a few days) will require begging, arm-twisting, calling in favours, etc. However, we really need 3 external reviews for every paper going into rebuttal on 11/4. But some ground rules:
Changed lines 30-31 from:
here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to add your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section within the meta-review, i.e., beginning with 'My personal opinion'.
to:
here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to add your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section within the meta-review, i.e., beginning with 'My personal opinion'.

Some tips for writing a meta-review. Authors have put quite a bit of work in it, so having feedback done in a constructive and positive voice will be better received than one that says only negative things. That is, always find something positive to say about the paper, even if you are going to recommend rejection. One method is to start your meta-review by summarizing what authors liked, before you get into reasons why a paper may be rejected.
Added lines 32-36:
Around here: Thoughts about Best Paper Nominees
------------------------------------------------
Look at your papers. See if any are worth recommending as a best paper nominee. We will send more on this later.
Added lines 7-8:
Immediately: Book your flight and reserve the hotel if you haven't already done so! See http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/Personal/SC_travel_final.pdf
Changed lines 15-16 from:
* Important: your meta-review and the 2nd AC comments (who may look at the paper later) do not count towards the three reviewers. Meta-reviews and 2nd AC comments serve different purposes (see below).
to:
* Your meta-review and the 2nd AC comments that may be added at a later date do not count towards the three reviewers.
Changed lines 20-24 from:
Once reviews for a paper are available you c write a meta-review. If there are significant disagreements
between reviewers you may wish to initiate a discussion among them to see if this can assist you in
resolving these. Meta-reviews may contain some (preferably separate) discussion of how you personally
see the paper
, but are primarily a summary description of the external reviews indicating points where
the
reviews agree and disagree. If reviews disagree you may wish to indicate which conflicting
to:
Once reviews for a paper are available you can write a meta-review and initiate a discussion between reviewers if warranted.

Discussion: If there are significant disagreements between reviewers, you may wish to initiate a discussion among them to see if this can assist you in resolving these. As well
, if there are significant differences in reviewer scoring, you may want to ask them if they can reach a concensus by adjusting their scores. However, reviewers should not feel pressured into changing their scores or opinions if they do not want to.

The meta-review: Meta-reviews are primarily a summary description of the external reviews indicating points where
the reviews agree and disagree. If reviews disagree you may wish to indicate which conflicting
Changed lines 30-31 from:
here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to aadd your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section of the meta-review.
to:
here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to add your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section within the meta-review, i.e., beginning with 'My personal opinion'.
Changed lines 5-10 from:
This note outlines what your next set of duties are, with critical dates included. While its long, you should read all of it.

# Wed. Oct 29
, evening. Check for missing reviews. Each paper needs at least three reviews.
** Important: your meta-review and the 2nd AC comments (who may look at the paper later) do not count towards the three reviewers. Meta
-reviews and 2nd AC comments serve different purposes (see below).
** If a reviewer hasn't done their review, contact them immediately.
** If a reviewer doesn't respond immediately, and its likely they
have failed you, you must try to find another last minute reviewer who can turn around a review in a few days, i.e., by Nov. 2 the latest. This will require begging, arm-twisting, calling in favours, etc., but it is really really important that at least three reviews are present (this is the CHI standard).
to:
This note outlines what your next set of duties are, with critical dates included. While its long, you should read all of it. Of course, the first few items are the most critical, and must be attended to right away.

Wed 10/29: Reviews due back from reviewers
Wed 10/29: Track missing reviews & quickly resolve
----------------------------------------------------
There are only ~3 days of extra time after the deadline for reviews to allow you to round up final missing reviewers from reviewers who have let you down. You may even
have to find last minute replacements for non-responding reviewers. Finding these last minute people (who must turn around a review in a few days) will require begging, arm-twisting, calling in favours, etc. However, we really need 3 external reviews for every paper going into rebuttal on 11/4. But some ground rules:
Changed lines 13-18 from:

# Monday November 3, meta-reviews of all papers due. \\
The meta-review is your bird's eye appraisal of the paper that considers all referee comments. While you can include a personal review as well, you should separate this from the meta-review. The meta-review should summarize the primary evaluation points about the paper, and how these lead to a recommendation.

# Critical deadlines you need to attend
While we will explain this further in another note, the 2nd AC serves as a second discussant of a paper at the paper meeting, to arrive at a decision concensus with the primary AC or have others discuss problems. While they may write an opinion, it is not normally a review as you would consider it.
to:
* Important: your meta-review and the 2nd AC comments (who may look at the paper later) do not count towards the three reviewers. Meta-reviews and 2nd AC comments serve different purposes (see below).

Wed 10/29: Initiate reviewer discussion as needed
Wed 10/29 - Nov 3: Write meta-reviews
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once reviews for a paper are available you c write a meta-review. If there are significant disagreements
between reviewers you may wish to initiate a discussion among them to see if this can assist you in
resolving these. Meta-reviews may contain some (preferably separate) discussion of how you personally
see the paper, but are primarily a summary description of the external reviews indicating points where
the reviews agree and disagree. If reviews disagree you may wish to indicate which conflicting
arguments you feel are more persuasive or points should be weighted more heavily (but remember that
the reviewers will see your meta-review also). The score you give for the meta-review should normally
reflect the underlying reviews. As a guide you should likely start with the average of the review scores
and then think about what adjustments from that might be justified based on resolving conflicts and
weighting of the importance of particular points raised. We are asking you to use your expert judgment
here, but you should not be completely substituting your opinion for that of your reviewers. If you do want to aadd your own personal review/opinion, then identify that as a separate section of the meta-review.

Mon 11/3: Hard deadline for all reviews (including meta-, replacement, and additional reviews)
Tues 11/4: Reviews and meta-reviews released to authors for rebuttal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All reviews and meta-reviews (with scores) will be released to authors on this date to help them prepare
a rebuttal. Rebuttals allow authors to counter factual errors in the reviews, so it's important that the
authors are able to see all the external reviews at this point. Note that after this point, since the authors
will have seen your meta-review it is probably best to make all changes as additions to the review. If
you end up adjusting the score on the meta-review after this point (e.g., based on the author's rebuttal)
you should remember that the author knows this is a change and add an explicit explanation of why this
was done to the meta-review.

Tues 11/4: Preliminary "discuss" status determined (based on score cut offs and AC input)
Wed 11/5: SCs assign "discuss" papers to 2ACs for review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just after releasing papers to authors for rebuttal, the papers chairs will determine cutoff lines for
papers which will be by default accepted or rejected without discussion at the PC meeting. Cutoffs will
be based on score average and variance. In addition you may request discussion for papers which wouldn't normally receive it if you feel this is justified. All papers which are to be discussed at the PC meeting need to have an additional AC present who has also reviewed the paper. A secondary AC for all these papers will be assigned by your subcommittee chair at this point. 2AC reviews are full reviews much like external reviews.
- We will send you a note in a few days with these cutoffs.
- Your Sub-Committee Chair will then assign further papers to you as a 2AC

Mon 11/10: Author rebuttals due
Tues 11/11: Initiate reviewer discussion as needed
Tues 11/11: Review rebuttals, possibly move papers to "discuss" and recruit 2AC reviewer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should look at all rebuttals. If you find that the rebuttal raises important points you may wish to
change previously non-discussed paper to a discussed paper. In that case you should recruit a
secondary AC for the paper. (In general, any paper discussed at the PC meeting needs to have at least
two people in the room who have read it -- it is your responsibility to ensure this is the case). If there
are points in the rebuttal that need discussion you may also initiate additional discussion among the
reviewers at this point.


Mon 11/26: 2AC reviews due
Mon 12/1: Updated meta-reviews and final "discuss" status due
---------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the newly available 2AC review, the rebuttal, and any additional discussion, you can make
additional changes (most likely additions) to your meta-reviews. Again, if you end up changing scores
based on these updates it is important that you explicitly explain this in the meta-review. The final
status of whether the paper is to be discussed at the PC meeting should be established at this point.
This will happen either via the automatic cutoff points or your explicit request to discuss a paper (as
marked on the meta-review form).

Thu 12/4: PC meeting in Boston
-------------------------------
Additional details about the conduct of the PC meeting will be provided separately. Please plan to arrive
Wednesday afternoon or evening so we can start work first thing Thursday morning. Work will continue
until 1:30pm Friday. Please don't plan a departure that would require you to leave the meeting early
(Friday night hotel costs will be covered where necessary due to travel arrangements).

Fri 12/5: Post-meeting finalization of feedback to authors (done in Boston if possible)
Tue 12/8: Materials certified by ACs as ready to go back to authors
Wed 12/9: Reviews and decisions returned to authors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
After the meeting you will need to make final updates to the feedback that will be returned to the
authors and mark in the system when this is ready to be released to the authors. This needs to happen
fairly quickly to meet our schedule, so you probably want to try to have most or all of this done before
you leave Boston. At this stage it is important that you provide information to the authors that enables
them to understand why the decision that was made was made. For conditionally accepted papers you
need to provide clear feedback about the expectations of the committee about what changes may be
needed in the paper.


Scott Hudson and Saul Greenberg, papers co-chairs
mailto:papers@chi2009.org
Changed lines 5-6 from:
This note outlines what your next set of duties are, with critical dates included.
to:
This note outlines what your next set of duties are, with critical dates included. While its long, you should read all of it.
Changed lines 13-16 from:
# Critical deadlines you need to atten
to:
# Monday November 3, meta-reviews of all papers due. \\
The meta-review is your bird's eye appraisal of the paper that considers all referee comments. While you can include a personal review as well, you should separate this from the meta-review. The meta-review should summarize the primary evaluation points about the paper, and how these lead to a recommendation.

# Critical deadlines you need to attend
Added lines 1-14:
Subject: ACM CHI: What Associate Chairs do After the Reviews are in
Dear Associate Chairs;

The deadline for reviews are today, Wednesday October 29.
This note outlines what your next set of duties are, with critical dates included.

# Wed. Oct 29, evening. Check for missing reviews. Each paper needs at least three reviews.
** Important: your meta-review and the 2nd AC comments (who may look at the paper later) do not count towards the three reviewers. Meta-reviews and 2nd AC comments serve different purposes (see below).
** If a reviewer hasn't done their review, contact them immediately.
** If a reviewer doesn't respond immediately, and its likely they have failed you, you must try to find another last minute reviewer who can turn around a review in a few days, i.e., by Nov. 2 the latest. This will require begging, arm-twisting, calling in favours, etc., but it is really really important that at least three reviews are present (this is the CHI standard).
* Avoid asking other ACs to do last minute reviewes. Like you, they have enough to do.

# Critical deadlines you need to atten
While we will explain this further in another note, the 2nd AC serves as a second discussant of a paper at the paper meeting, to arrive at a decision concensus with the primary AC or have others discuss problems. While they may write an opinion, it is not normally a review as you would consider it.