[AISWorld] Sound conference desk rejection policy

[Cecil Eng Huang Chua]

Hi Harminder,


I really like this suggestion.  It is doable and gives authors of rejected papers a chance to make them right.  The only things are:

-it increases the workload of the track chairs and presumably the AE if the AE is the desk rejecting party

-You need multiple track chairs in a track.  Not really a problem for most conferences.

-Conference software infrastructure has to support submissions after the deadline.  Either that, or the managing editor is going to have a lot of work to do.


Cecil Chua

________________________________
From: Harminder Singh <harminder.singh at aut.ac.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:06 PM
To: Cecil Eng Huang Chua; aisworld at lists.aisnet.org
Subject: Re: [AISWorld] Sound conference desk rejection policy

Hi Cecil-

One option that I've learned from my colleagues and which we've followed (fairly successfully, I think) when we were co-track chairs goes in the following sequence:

1) Track chairs review submissions for "hygiene"- send those in the wrong track to the right track, reject papers that are obvious misfits with the conference based on their topic.
2) Track chairs classify papers into 2 groups: those which are "worth reviewing" and those which are likely to be rejected.
3) Track chairs send papers which are "worth reviewing" out for reviews (to AEs or reviewers, depending on the conference structure).
4) The papers which remain are not "desk rejected" but are reviewed by the track chair/s, and the authors are invited to resubmit their paper in 2 weeks' time.
5) When the reviews for the papers in Step 3 arrive, the track chairs handle them as per normal- reject/accept/revise/etc. If the conference has posters, papers that are "weak rejects" are invited to submit posters.
6) Some authors from Step 4 will revise and resubmit the papers, and these are again reviewed by the track chairs, who handle them as per normal- reject/accept/revise/etc. As in Step 5, papers that are "weak rejects" are invited to submit posters if the conference has them.

To me, this process is appropriate because it is an attempt to balance the conflicting goals of: ensuring a quality conference programme, providing useful feedback to authors, treating authors fairly, and respecting the time of reviewers.

Regards,
Harminder