High Quality Review
As an IEEE INFOCOM 2014 reviewer, your reviews and discussion participation are crucial in determining the ultimate quality of the conference.
A simple way to think about the reviewer duties is to think reciprocally about what you expect as an author of a paper from a peer in the community: a good, substantive review, a decision that is well-founded on the consensus of the reviews and good feedback. This is what we expect from reviewers. The element of randomness in the process cannot be eliminated, but we want to control it while biasing it towards merit and providing good feedback to authors. Providing high quality reviews is by far the most important contribution of a reviewer.
- Basic Quantity/Quality: Reviews of length shorter than 100 words will generate an automated EDAS feedback to you requesting more input.
- Kindly do not cut-and-paste the same information in different categories when this happens: please enter feedback that will be useful to authors.
- In particular, if any of the papers are reviewed with the help of students, we expect the reviewer to provide oversight and clarity and personally enter the reviews into the EDAS system.
- In the TPC meeting, a review having a score of 5 with a short unsubstantiated review will be discounted, and the other dissenting reviews may override the higher score if they are more substantive.
- So, if you want your reviews to matter in TPC discussions, please enter substantive, high quality reviews.