Overview of the congress and the review process
- Call for papers: The process begins with the call for the presentation of papers (CFP)
- Deadline: It is the limit date for authors to submit their work.
- Format review: This is a first review of the manuscripts to ensure that they comply with the basic format guidelines, neatness, number of pages, size, etc,
- Bidding: It is the procedure where the REVIEWERS quickly look at the papers (title and abstract) and indicate if they could review them. In this procedure, reviewers are asked to mark as many manuscripts as possible. This does not imply that all the selected manuscripts will be assigned. Generally three to four papers are assigned to each reviewer, but the more papers the reviewer checks, the easier the assignment task is for the COMMITTEE.
- Conflicts: During bidding, each REVIEWER can indicate conflicting manuscripts. For example, for the papers in which he/she participates as an author, or those that he/she identifies as being in the same field of work (close).
- Assignment: Taking into account the bidding (preferences and conflicts) made by the REVIEWERS, the COMMITTEE will assign the manuscripts to them.
- Double blind: Manuscripts are submitted anonymously to REVIEWERS. And on the other hand, the AUTHORS do not know the identity of the reviewers. It is important that the REVIEWER remains anonymous from the AUTHORS from beginning to end of the process. Instead, the identity of AUTHORS with approved papers will be revealed at the time of the Camera Ready release.
- Notification to reviewers: Reviewers will be informed which manuscripts they have been assigned to review, along with the due date for review.
- First review: It is the process by which the REVIEWER reads the manuscript and then makes a return about it. It is imperative that the reviewer knows the review guidelines in order to complete the review form. The reviewer may request modifications from the authors and must indicate to which category the reviewer believes the manuscript should belong.
- Notification to the authors of the revisions: The AUOTRES will receive the revisions made to their manuscripts.
- Rebuttal: Following the reviewers comments, the AUTHORS can apply modifications to their works. They may also respond to the revisions, clarifying, justifying or commenting on the aspects that they consider pertinent to communicate to the REVIEWERS.
- Second review: The modifications and comments received in the rebuttal process are evaluated by the reviewers. At this stage the REVIEWERS can maintain or modify their revision. In case of modifying the revision, information must always be added, without deleting the first revision.
- Metareviews: Thematic CHAIRS read the revisions and recommend whether or not to approve each manuscript, and in which category they consider it should go.
- Final qualification: The COMMITTEE evaluates the metareviews and applies the qualification of APPROVED or REJECTED, categorizing the manuscript as Article, Technology Forum or Report.
- Notification to authors: Authors are notified and those who are approved are asked for the Camera Ready version.
- Camera Ready: It is the final version of the manuscript that will be published, this version must include the authors, affiliations, acknowledgments section and all formal details should be taken care of.
- Assignment acceptance: Upon being invited as a reviewer, you should log into Easychair and accept it.
- Bidding: Indicate all the manuscripts that you could review and mark the conflicts.
- First review: Carry out the evaluation of the assigned manuscript within the stipulated dates.
- Appointment of sub-reviewers: It is possible for you to reassign a manuscript to a sub-reviewer if you think it is more suitable for a colleague (by clicking Request for Review in the Easychair menu).
- Reject a review: If you are unable to perform any of the reviews, or if the manuscript is out of your scope, you should report as soon as possible so that the committee can assign the manuscript to another reviewer.
- Second review (Rebuttal): This second review consists of reading the authors’ reply, and verifying the modifications made to the manuscript if requested. With this new information, the reviewer will be able to maintain, raise or lower the manuscript grade.
The review process involves reading a manuscript and evaluating it in several aspects:
- Analyze if the title and summary clearly and truly reflect the content of the manuscript.
- Evaluate the organization of the article, its coherence and the existence of a common thread throughout the article.
- Review the quality of technical content.
- Check that the results and conclusions are consistent with the manuscript.
- Verify that the cited references are sufficient and correct.
- The reviewer may request modifications from the authors, acceptance of the manuscript may be subject to these modifications.
- Please carefully read the “Evaluation Criteria” row of the table in the following page to meet how you should categorize the work: http://www.sase.com.ar/case/en/cfp-en/info-authors/
The evaluator should log in to Easychair, choose â€śReviewsâ€ť in the main menu, then â€śMy Papersâ€ť, there will appear the list of assigned papers. To access the online form, the reviewer should select “Add new review” of the paper the reviewer wishes to evaluate.
Overall Evaluation (selection): The reviewers should define, according to their criteria, in which category the manuscript should go. The category is defined according to the “Evaluation criteria” row of the table on the following page: http://www.sase.com.ar/case/en/cfp-en/info-authors/
Overall Evaluation (textbox): The reviewer should comment on his/her evaluation of the manuscript, mentioning errors, suggestions for improvement or correction, and comments that will be sent to the authors. Always be respectful and considerate in their comments. It should be remembered not to reveal the identity.
Reviewer’s confidence: The reviewer should rank his/her grade of knowledge on the particular topic that the manuscript addresses. This parameter is taken into account when evaluating the review, therefore sincerity is requested when completing it.
Confidential remarks for the program committee: Comments for the committee that will not be sent to the authors.
For any questions or queries: email@example.com, subject: â€śREVIEWER INQUIRYâ€ť.