Below we provide instructions for reviewers of contributions submitted to the STI 2023 conference.
What kind of review am I expected to write?
In your review, please comment on a contribution by considering the following two criteria:
Conference contributions are short papers (max. 3000 words) and your review report can therefore also be relatively brief. It does not need to be as extensive as a typical review report for a research article submitted to a scholarly journal. However, your review should consider both of the above criteria and should provide a clear justification for your recommendation (see below).
Please make sure to write your review in a respectful and constructive way. Keep in mind that your review will be published (see below).
What kind of recommendation am I expected to make?
Based on the two criteria mentioned above, please make one of the following recommendations:
How is my review going to be used?
The selection committee of the conference will use your review to decide which contributions to accept for oral or poster presentation at the conference. The procedure that the committee will follow is documented here.
Authors may use your review to improve their contribution. Because the peer review process of the conference is open (see below), readers of a contribution will also have access to your review. They may use your review to develop a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of a contribution.
Will my review be published?
Yes, the conference uses an open peer review process and your review will therefore be published. Your review will go through a moderation process before being published on the Orvium platform. The moderation process aims to prevent the publication of reviews that are disrespectful or otherwise problematic.
Will my review be anonymous?
This is up to you. By default your review will be anonymous. However, we encourage you to sign your review by writing your name at the bottom of your review report.
What is the deadline for submitting my review?
The deadline is May 26, 2023. This is a strict deadline. We need to inform authors as soon as possible about the acceptance or rejection of their contribution for presentation at the conference, and we therefore cannot extend the deadline for submitting your review.
I don’t have time to review for your conference. What to do?
If you have submitted a contribution to the conference, we expect you to also contribute to the peer review process. Just like others will review your contribution, we count on you to review contributions by others. The success of the conference depends critically on the availability of enough high-quality reviews.
Be aware that conference contributions are relatively short and review reports can also be relatively short (see above). Reviewing a contribution therefore should take only a limited amount of time.
We appreciate that there may be exceptional circumstances that make it impossible to serve as reviewer for the conference. Please contact us as soon as possible if this is the case.
I am not sure whether I have sufficient expertise to review a contribution. May I ask others to help me?
Yes, you may ask others for help. Since conference contributions have already been published as a preprint, you do not need to treat them confidentially. Feel free to ask others to help in reviewing a contribution. If you have submitted a contribution yourself, you may consider asking your co-authors to help in reviewing contributions by others.
We thank all reviewers for their efforts. Your help is much appreciated!