The roles involved in the review process are:
- Program chairs
- Meta-reviewers, who together constitute the program committee (PC)
- Reviewers, who together constitute the review committee (RC)
Two program chairs are appointed by the SIGCSE board to serve a two year term, based on nominations from the current conference co-chairs. One new appointment is made each year so that in any given year there is always a continuing program chair from the prior year and a new program chair. Appointment criteria include prior attendance and publication at ICER, past service on the ICER Program Committee, research excellence in Computing Education, collaborative and organizational skills to share oversight of the program selection process. Expressions of interest should be sent to the current conference chairs, along with a CV and a statement of how the candidate meets the appointment criteria.
The program chairs invite and appoint the members of the program committee. The committee will be sized so that each PC member will serve as meta-reviewer for 6-10 paper submissions. Each PC member will serve a three year term, with appointments occasionally made for one or two fewer years to ensure the staggering of appointments. Approximately one-third of the committee members will be new appointments each year. Appointment criteria include:
- Length of service on Review Committee (2 years minimum)
- Consistently high performance as reviewer
- Consistently high performance as meta-reviewer if served on PC in the past
- History of prior publication in ICER
A program committee member may be reappointed only after a hiatus of two years. Expressions of interest should be sent to the current program chairs, along with a CV and a statement of how the candidate meets the appointment criteria.
The program chairs invite and appoint the members of the review committee. The committee will be sized so that each RC member will serve as reviewer for 4-6 paper submissions. Each reviewer will serve a one year term, with no limits on reappointment. Appointment criteria include:
- Past attendance at ICER
- PhD in CS, CS Ed, Ed, or related field, or equivalent research experience
- Publication of research papers in Computing Education forums
- Satisfactory reviews for any prior service on ICER review committee
Expressions of interest should be sent to the current program chairs, along with a CV and a statement of how the candidate meets the appointment criteria.
ICER research papers are reviewed using a double-blind process managed through EasyChair. Authors initially submit an abstract by the abstract submission deadline, with the final deadline for full papers one week later. Following the abstract submission deadline, review committee and program committee members bid on papers of interest and register conflicts. This process is used in an effort to best match papers with reviewer and program committee member expertise. Each paper is assigned to at least three reviewers and exactly one program committee member.
Assigned reviewers submit their anonymous reviews through EasyChair by the review deadline, making an accept/reject recommendation along with a rationale using the conference review form. During this review period, the program committee member assigned as meta-reviewer will stimulate discussion with the reviewers where appropriate. Once all reviews have been submitted, program committee members submit a meta-review, making an accept/reject recommendation along with a rationale, using the conference meta-review form. Prior to the meta-review deadline, the program committee member and reviewers assigned to a paper have the option to engage in anonymous discussion through the EasyChair system concerning the paper under review.
Following the meta-review deadline, the program chairs determine the program, based on the reviews and meta-reviews. Authors are notified of the final decisions via email no later than the notification date listed in the CFP.
Note for 2017: this review process represents a change from the process used for ICER 2016. A rationale and highlight of changes is provided.
Conflict of Interest
- Program chairs and Conference chairs cannot submit a research paper to ICER, but their students are permitted to do so. Members of the Program and Review Committees and their students are permitted to submit papers to ICER.
- An individual cannot be involved in any role in the review process for any paper for which he or she has a conflict of interest.
- A paper submitted to the ICER conference is a conflict of interest for an individual if at least one of the following is true: 1) the individual is a co-author of the paper, 2) a student of the individual is a co-author of the paper, or 3) the individual identifies the paper as a conflict of interest, i.e. that the individual does not believe that he or she can provide an impartial evaluation of the paper.
- It is the responsibility of the members of the Program and Review Committees to indicate, for every submission, whether he or she has a conflict of interest. It is the responsibility of the Program co-chairs to ensure that no member of the Program or Review Committees is assigned a role in the review process for any paper for which he or she has a conflict of interest.
- The Program co-chairs will inform one another in writing of any conflicts of interest for any papers that have been submitted. For any paper for which a Program co-chair has a conflict of interest, including papers co-authored by the co-chair’s students, the other co-chair will make the accept/reject decision for this paper.
- In the unlikely event that there is a paper for which both Program co-chairs have a conflict of interest, the Program co-chairs will assign the accept/reject decision for this paper to one of the members of the Program Committee.