Reviewing ICIS17 Abstracts - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Reviewing ICIS17 Abstracts

R. Scrivens, SPC Chair, 13-14/06/2017

The SPC objective is to review the abstracts for quality, and rate those proposed for oral contributions in order to produce a conference

programme

.

The Abstract deadline is 16 June 2017 (it was extended).

>170 abstracts submitted so far.

There will be a short check of abstracts by the CERN team:

Remove duplicates.

Unfinished submissions.

Start reviewing by the SPC members

Each

member will be assigned 2-4 tracks/topics to review

. No more than 70 abstracts.

For each submission:

Rate

the submission on

suitability/originality/quality and interest.

Accept / Reject (which includes Modify) - Comments to be noted for Modify/Reject

End of this day (Geneva time)

Item

9 June 2017

Original Abstract Submission Deadline

16 June 2017

Extended deadline (may

not be actually closed)

20 June 2017

Pre-check

of submitted abstracts (removal of duplicates, unfinished submissions

etc

)

21 June 2017

Launch of review process with SPC

14 July 2017

End of review process by SPC (no

extension!)

20 July 2017

The

Programme

Panel creates the proposed

programme

.

21 July 2017

Contributed Oral

Programme

proposal

sent to SPC

28 July 2017

Inform participants poster

/ oral decision

A Guide to the

Indico

Abstract Reviewing Tool

(SPC members must be registered to the conference,

payment+attendance

not compulsory)

Login in at the top right, to get access to the abstract reviewing menu.

These are the “tracks” you have been assigned to review.

The number shows how many you still have to review.

Select an abstract to review.

TITLE

AUTHORS

Abstract

Type Requested

Click here to give YOUR review

Answer the three questions.

1: For an oral – please rate about the interest to hear about this work as an oral presentation.

For a poster – If not suitable for the conference, mark as Poor and say why

Rating

0=Poor

1=Average

2=Good

3=Excellent

4=Outstanding

Answer the three questions.

2: Is the language/grammar good enough for the book of abstracts.

Rating

0=Poor=Needs significant changes by the author

1=Average

=Needs author

attention (typo, spelling)

2-4=Good=Acceptable

Answer the three questions.

3: Formatting acceptable?

Title and author correctly done. Highlight mistakes with rating 0 or 1.

Rating

0=Poor=Needs significant changes by the author

1=Average=Needs author attention (typo, spelling)

2-4=Good=Acceptable

Overall Proposal

Accept – OK to go to the conference, as is.

Reject – Either Rejection outright, or requires Modification (Q2/3 has score 0 or 1). Please add comments if not accepted. Please start the comment with the word

REJECT or MODIFY.

Change Track – Only if really necessary.

Mark as Duplicate – Do not use.

Merge – Do not use.

Comment

As

noted on the last slide, please write REJECT or MODIFY if you clicked reject in the box above.

Please give a comment why it needs modification or is rejected.

If possible suggest a potential reviewer for the final paper (even yourself!)

The submission process will be left open if there are not too many abstracts.

Late submissions cannot be considered for oral.

After the end of the review period, the

Programme

Panel will verify all rejected and modified requests and ask for resubmission of the abstracts requiring modifications. We will verify they are modified according to your comments.

The

Programme

Panel will then draw up a

programme

based on topics and your ratings, as well as diversity. We will take the invited contributions into account.

The draft

programme

will be sent to the SPC for comments.

Questions?