|
|
|
|
The CSSP selection process
This page attempts to answer the questions the CSSP scientific committees often gets on the selection process.
Selecting submissions to CSSP involves two distinct bodies: the scientific committee, and the programme committee. Reviewing and selection will be anonymous, identity of authors is only known to the programme chair who will manage all conflicts of interest.
-
The scientific committee has ten members right now. The committee is responsible for all decisions concerning the scientific content of the conference. All members of the scientific committee are also members of the programme committee.
-
The programme committee has about 50 members. The membership may change substantially from conference to conference, depending on the specific subject matter of certain submissions, and the availability of prospective members.
Choosing reviewers: The scientific committee assigns abstracts to reviewers on the basis of their domains of expertise. Except in special cases (abstract too long, too short or inappropriate) each abstract is sent to three reviewers, including a member of the scientific committee.
Anonymity: Since abstracts must remain anonymous for members of the scientific committee, conflict of interest will be resolved by the programme chair, who alone knows the identities of authors. In rare instances the committee may decide to alter the selection after anonymity has been lifted: If two abstracts by the same author have been accepted, the committee may decide to keep only the highest ranked in the selection.
Special cases: CSSP considers submissions both from members of the programme committee and from members of the scientific committee (except the chair). Submissions from members of the programme committee are treated just like other submissions. Submissions from members of the scientific committee are reviewed anonymously by three reviewers external to the scientific committee.
Notification: The authors are notified of the result in a message including the comments from the reviewers. These comments are sent to authors to help them prepare their presentation or understand the assessment of their abstract. The comments do not reflect the position of the scientific committee, who need not agree with the evaluation of all reviewers.