[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.14.4″ background_enable_image=”off” custom_padding=”3px||5px|||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.14.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” width=”90%” custom_padding=”4px||6px|||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.14.4″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”13px” header_4_text_color=”#072f93″ header_5_text_color=”#085593″ header_5_line_height=”1.2em” text_orientation=”justified” custom_margin=”||18px|||” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
As soon as you get your reviewing assignment, please go through all the papers to make sure that\u00a0(a)\u00a0there is no conflict of interest with you\u00a0(e.g., paper authored by someone in your institution, a recent collaborator, or by someone from whom you have received income, more detailed list below)\u00a0and\u00a0(b)\u00a0you are comfortable and able to review any assigned papers with adequate expertise and impartially. If you have no knowledge of the paper\u2019s content area, do not accept to review it. If the above conditions are not met, please respond right away by emailing the Program Chairs so the paper in question can be reassigned.<\/p>\n
Focus on the paper\u2019s main unique contribution, its potential for impact, its strong points, and what it offers that is stimulating and novel. ICMI as a conference is looking for new ideas, and it values strong new directions, risk taking with adequate rationale provided, and multidisciplinarity. A paper that simply replicates past work is likely to be incremental and have less impact, unless it generalizes past findings and\/or focuses on an unusually important topic.<\/p>\n
All papers should be technically sound, without major flaws, and should be written very clearly. If a paper is not transparent with regard to how the research was conducted, reviewers may challenge its soundness or its readiness.<\/p>\n
Minor flaws can be corrected, and shouldn’t be a reason to reject a paper. Likewise:<\/p>\n
A paper that has been published previously without substantial expansion\u00a0(i.e., >25% new content), or that is simultaneously in submission elsewhere, should be discarded out of hand without review. However, if a preprint of the submission has been placed on arXiv, that is acceptable and not considered a violation of anonymity.<\/p>\n
Authors were asked to take reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including not listing their names or affiliations and omitting acknowledgments and funding sources. This information will of course be included in the published version. Reviewers should also make all efforts to keep their identity invisible to the authors. Reviewers should not take steps to seek out the authors\u2019 identity and, in the event a preprint of the submission exists on arXiv, that is acceptable, not a reason to reject a paper, and not considered a breach of anonymity.<\/p>\n
Please be specific and adequately detailed in your reviews. In the discussion of related work and references, simply saying “this is well known” or “this has been common practice in the industry for years” is not sufficient: cite specific publications or public disclosures of techniques. Likewise, simply saying \u201cthis paper has major technical flaws\u201d is inadequate unless specific problems are described so they can be evaluated by all reviewers of the paper. In summary, your review critiques must be justified with specific evidence. Otherwise, your review may be over-ruled or even rejected by the committee member acting as meta-reviewer, if it is not substantiated and the other reviewers disagree with it.<\/p>\n
Your main critique of the paper should be written to explain the contribution of the paper, along with its main strength and weaknesses. Stick to your main points. Explain your arguments. Be thorough. Provide adequate discussion that other reviewers can understand the basis of your critique. Your reviews will be returned to the authors, so you should include any specific constructive feedback on ways the authors can use to improve their papers. Always be constructive in your tone. Note that any reviews that are far too brief, inappropriate in tone, fail to be impartial, recommend rejection for inappropriate reasons\u00a0(e.g., that conflict with these instructions), or that fail to provide clear rationale for recommendations risk being discarded by the committee. For more suggestions on writing your reviews, read the section below on Writing Technical Reviews.<\/p>\n
Your role is that of a valuable volunteer, who\u00a0(1)\u00a0ensures that the best submissions are selected to advance future research in our professional community, and provides constructive feedback to the authors so they can make corrections and learn to improve their work. Put yourself in the mindset of writing a review for someone whom you wish to help, such as a respected colleague who wants your opinion on their work. Below are some points to strengthen your reviews. Write a review that:<\/p>\n
Remember that your reviews are read not just by the authors, but also by other reviewers, senior members of the community acting as Area Chairs, and the Technical Program Chairs. They know your identity and are counting on your professional input. They also have the latitude to honor your review with a best reviewer award, or to discard it altogether if judged inappropriate. This is your professional community, so serve it well. The consistently best reviewers are more likely to be valued, trusted, and chosen to serve on future program committees when opportunities arise.<\/p>\n
In appendix A, we provide clear examples of anonymized ICMI reviews that were\u00a0(1)\u00a0worthy of receiving a best reviewer award;\u00a0(2)\u00a0judged inadequate and discarded from consideration.<\/p>\n
As a reviewer for ICMI, you have the strict responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in papers you review. ICMI submissions are not published documents, and the work is considered new and proprietary by the authors. Individuals and organizations do not consider sending a paper to ICMI for review to constitute a public disclosure. Protection of the ideas in the papers you receive means you may not:<\/p>\n
This new paper track, introduced in 2021, solicits papers relevant to ICMI content that go beyond the usual research paper to present new visions that stimulate the community to pursue innovative new research directions. They may challenge existing assumptions and methodologies, or propose new applications or theories. The papers are encouraged to present high-risk controversial ideas, preferably ones that are potentially high-impact contributions. Submitted papers are expected to represent deep reflection, to argue rigorously, and to present ideas from a high-level synthetic viewpoint\u00a0(e.g., multidisciplinary, based on multiple methodologies). Submissions are 4 pages, independent of references.<\/p>\n
Those who compose the invited review panel for these papers will emphasize judgement based on criteria like: breadth of knowledge in the field or relevant multidisciplinary fields, creativity or novelty of ideas, provocativeness of ideas that may run counter to existing assumptions, methods, theory and\/or research beliefs, depth of reflection in considering the topic and its implications, soundness of arguments and critiques, visionary quality of ideas, written presentation quality, and guidance in pursuing important future research directions. No submission in this track will be criticized for presenting too unconventional or \u201cwacky\u201d an idea, for presenting an idea that conflicts with existing research beliefs, or for its political implications per se. High-risk papers presenting entirely novel ideas or critiques are highly encouraged.<\/p>\n
Reviewers must maintain an open mind in considering the potential contributions of submissions in this track. As a reminder, unimodal as well as multimodal papers are both entirely acceptable at ICMI, as are papers spanning different methodologies from human behavior studies, to user interaction studies, to system development papers, to machine learning analyses and evaluation, and so forth. A wide range of research content, methodologies, and style are entirely within the scope of ICMI. In fact, since Blue Sky papers may introduce entirely new research challenges for the ICMI community, they will not be judged on whether they are within the scope of ICMI per se. In summary, the quality of Blue Sky papers will be discussed and debated by the invited panel who compose the Blue Sky track selection committee.<\/p>\n
[1] These guidelines were prepared originally by ICMI 2021 Program Chairs, with thanks to the CVPR and CHI conferences, whose guidelines were used as a model.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Guidelines for Reviewers The ICMI 2023 Reviewer Tutorial, Guidelines and Examples [1] Check Your Assigned Papers Carefully As soon as you get your reviewing assignment, please go through all the papers to make sure that\u00a0(a)\u00a0there is no conflict of interest with you\u00a0(e.g., paper authored by someone in your institution, a recent collaborator, or by someone […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n
This is an example page. It's different from a blog post because it will stay in one place and will show up in your site navigation (in most themes). Most people start with an About page that introduces them to potential site visitors. It might say something like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hi there! I'm a bike messenger by day, aspiring actor by night, and this is my website. I live in Los Angeles, have a great dog named Jack, and I like pi\u00f1a coladas. (And gettin' caught in the rain.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
...or something like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The XYZ Doohickey Company was founded in 1971, and has been providing quality doohickeys to the public ever since. Located in Gotham City, XYZ employs over 2,000 people and does all kinds of awesome things for the Gotham community.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n