Mini Program Committee Meeting
Review Submission Deadline
The review should be submitted on or before the following date. Please note
that the reviews are not due in the beginning of the class, but Friday 11:59
PM the week before the Mini PC Meeting.
Due Date: 03/28/2014 Friday, 11:59 PM
PC Meeting Location: ENS 637 for 3/31 Monday and 4/2
Wednesday 3PM to 4:15 PM (Please note that the class will meet
in ENS 637 not ENS 126 on those two days.)
Overview and Objectives
Mini PC is a task that mocks up an actual programming committee meeting
where program committee members select peer-reviewed research
articles for technical conferences. Each committee member will review
papers assigned to them and submit a critical assessment for each assigned
paper, either from a perspective of an advocate or from a perspective of
skeptic. In this exercise each graduate student will review 4
assigned papers and each undergraduate student will read 1
paper. Every student will have to submit a review report for the papers
assigned.
A review template is provided below and you will write a review but also
provide scores to indicate your assessment of the paper's originality,
comprehensiveness, and new research contributions. Only after you submit
your reviews, you will be able to see other committee members' reviews. On
the days of PC meetings, Dr. Kim will take a role of PC chairs and we will
have a roundtable PC meeting where each paper is discussed by the
committee members who review the paper.
To emulate the blind review process, the titles and author names are
masked on purposes. To provide anonymity in some degree, we only use
initials for the reviewer assignment below.
The following are the papers and the links for the papers. Please select
the papers assigned against your name in the table for review.
Steps involved in the Mini PC
Step 1: The instruction for the mini PC meeting is discussed today.
Step 2: The specific papers will be assigned to the each reviewer.
Step 3: Each reviewer will read all the assigned paper.
Step 4: Each review submits a review report following the specified
format on or before the deadline by emailing the reviews to Dr Kim and TA
before March 28th, Friday 11:59 PM. You must submit reports by the deadline
to ensure timely release of your reviews to other committee members.
Step 5: TA will share reviews reports of a paper wall the
assignees of the paper by forwarding emails to PC members. TA will
send the reviews by Sunday 12 PM to allow enough time to read
other committee members' reviews. You must read other program committee
members' reviews to be prepared for the discussion.
Step 6: After all the paper reported are collected, the PC chair will
select the order of discussion for the PC meetings. For each paper, the
group discussion will consist of hearing a brief summary and position of an
advocate then followed by a skeptic and other committee members in between
who could weigh in the reviews.
Step 7: At the end of the committee meetings, all PC
members will collectively decide which papers will be selected for
publications and which papers will be rejected. We will also select the best
paper award out of submissions.
Review Submission Instructions
The review should be emailed addressing to Dr. Miryung Kim firstname
AT ece.utexas.edu and include in the cc Yamini Gotimukul First.Last@utexas.edu
by March 28th Friday 11:59 PM.
Review Submission Template
The review report should be submitted by filling all the section mentioned
below as a text document as an email body text.
***************************************************Review Submission
Template**********************************************************************
REVIEWER-NAME: XXXXXXX
PAPER-NUMBER: Paper 1
1. How do you classify this paper?
A: I will champion this paper at the PC meeting (advocate/accept).
B: I can accept this paper, but I will not champion it (accept, but could
reject).
C: This paper should be rejected, though I will not fight strongly against
it (Reject, but could accept).
D: Serious problems. I will argue to reject this paper (detractor).
CLASSIFICATION: (Fill in after the keyword: A, B, C or D)
2. Should this paper be considered for a distinguished paper award?
(Default = N)
DISTINGUISHED: (Yes or No; fill in after the keyword: Y or N)
3. What is your overall expertise concerning the subject areas of this
paper?
X: I am an expert;
Y: I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert;
Z: I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider.
REVIEWER-EXPERTISE: (Fill in after the keyword: X, Y or Z)
4. Comments for the program committee
COMMITTEE-COMMENTS: (Type after and/or below the keyword)
5. Summary of the paper SUMMARY: (Type after and/or below the
keyword)
6. Evaluation of the paper, including points in favor and against, and
comments for improvement EVALUATION: (Type after and/or below
the keyword)
7. TECHNICAL QUALITY / CONTRIBUTION: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
QUALITY: 5 (excellent) --- 4 (good) --- 3 (fair) --- 2 (poor) --- 1
(very poor)
8. ORIGINALITY / INTERESTINGNESS: from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)
ORIGINALITY: 5 (excellent) --- 4 (good) --- 3 (fair) --- 2 (poor)
--- 1 (very poor)
********************************************************************End
of Template********************************************************
Papers under review and the assigned reviewers
The following are the links for the papers under the review
Note: The names of the reviewers are mentioned with the initials of the
First name and Last name.
Review Report Template
Please fill in all the sections of the review report template for each paper
that is assigned to you. You can download the report template from the
following link: Review
Report Template.docx