All RESPECT 2023 submissions are reviewed using a single-anonymous review process managed through EasyChair. There are four phases to the review process: bid, review, discussion, and recommendation. In addition to the Program Co-Chairs, two other types of volunteers contribute to this process:
- Reviewers provide high-quality reviews for submissions to provide authors with feedback so they may improve their work for presentation or future submission.
- Track Chairs meta-review each submission and provide a recommendation and feedback to the Program Co-Chairs.
Each submission will receive 3 reviews and a meta-review. All reviews are submitted through EasyChair.
Reviewer Guidelines
As a Reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about. When reviewing, it is your responsibility to provide a fair and equitable review.
- Before you begin your review, start by reading the RESPECT 2023 paper reviewing guidelines.
- As you write your review, please be specific and detailed in your reviews. Your main critique of the paper should be written in terms of a list of strengths and weaknesses. You can use bullet points here, but also explain your arguments. Your discussion, more than your score, will help the authors, fellow reviewers, and track chairs understand the basis for your recommendation, so please be thorough.
- As you reflect and revise your review, consider a few ways to ensure your review is equitable from the CHI 22 Equitable Reviewing Guide:
- Be honest about your expertise. If a paper uses a methodology outside of your expertise, then acknowledge what you do or do not know about that methodology. It is important to not discredit or unfairly score a paper based on our own preferences in methodological approaches.
- Reflect on and communicate your personal biases. Think about whether you are making assumptions about the paper that might just be grounded in a lack of information or your own personal preferences. We all have positionality.
- Consider your language biases. Are your writing critiques based on preferences of Western academic standards (e.g. the Oxford comma, grammar minimalism, parallel writing structure)?
Anonymized Reviews
Author Guidelines have instructed authors to make reasonable efforts to hide their identities, including omitting their names, affiliations, and acknowledgments. This information will, of course, be included in the published version. Likewise, reviewers should make all efforts to keep their identity invisible to the authors.
Reviewer Timeline
The following dates describe the review timeline for RESPECT 2023. Please consider your workload around these dates before accepting a reviewer invitation.
Feb 28-Mar 3 Reviewers bid on papers
Mar 4 Reviewers assigned
Mar 24 Reviews due
Mar 27-31 Review discussions
April 3 Metareviews due (Track Chairs only)
April 10 Notifications for Submissions