Activation, phases and deadlines

Configuration -> Paper submission -> Configuration

Activate paper review

Various prerequisites must be met before the review can begin. Some of them are optional or will be important at a later stage. The highlighted notes are crucial for the paper review to work.

Fig. 1: Basic configuration of paper review

Scroll down to the Basic configuration of paper review.

1. Select Allow Reviewing (Fig. 1, point 1). This activates the Abstract Review tab. Please note: This setting can only be changed if Use Abstracts is selected at the top of the page under Allow Abstracts.

2. Define the Review Contact Person from the Program Committee (Fig. 1, point 2). An e-mail address must be entered here, otherwise e-mail delivery in the workflow will not work properly later.

Configure paper review

Fig. 2: Define the period for abstract reviewing

The review period is set by defining the start and end of the review period (Fig. 2). Reviewers can only review submissions in the frontend during this period.

Message to author/programme committee

Even if messages to authors or the programme committee are allowed, there is no direct exchange, e.g. by email or direct message. Instead, the messages are linked to the contribution and can be viewed in the backend.

The message to an author can also be included in the email notifications for the review results using the placeholder #:ReviewerMessages:#. These can also be deleted or edited in the backend if an inappropriate message has been stored here.

Fig. 3: Messages to Authors or Program Committee in Paper Details > Review > Latest Version

Customising review email templates

As part of the review process, emails can be sent automatically via the workflows to inform the reviewers or authors about the status of the paper. These emails can be customised as desired.

Fig. 4: Customizing review email templates in review setup

We recommend that you fill all templates with appropriate content or use the defaults, even if you do not want to use the templates.

The replacements only work in the associated email templates, which is why the email or texts should not simply be copied.

Changing the responsible actors

Fig. 5: Moving papers to responsibility of reviewers in Workflows

Each abstract can only be in one area of responsibility: with the authors, with the reviewers or with the programme committee.

In order for the reviewers to have access and be able to evaluate the papers, the papers must be moved in the workflows from the phase Paper submission with the actor Author to the phase Paper evaluation with the actor Reviewer (Fig. 5, point 1).

Clicking on the arrow to move the articles to the next phase takes you to an intermediate step from which the e-mails can be sent to the reviewers. More information on this is provided in the chapter Starting the review process.

Fig. 6: Changing the actor in the latest abstract version

The actor in whose area of responsibility the paper lies can also be changed directly in the paper (Fig. 6). To do this, select the Paper data tab and then select the desired actor at the bottom of the abstract using the edit pen.

This allows individual papers to be moved within the workflows without having to trigger mass actions. This procedure is suitable, for example, for testing the paper evaluation.

In Fig. 7, for example, only paper #538 is released for the reviewer to evaluate (Fig. 7, item 1). All other papers are in the workflows of another area of responsibility and therefore cannot be evaluated in the frontend (Fig. 7, item 2).

Fig. 7: Reviewers view in frontend of papers which are not yet reviewable

Checking Incomplete Papers

Before you start reviewing submissions, you should check whether there are any incomplete submissions. These may be test submissions that have been intentionally left unfinished, or the submitter may have forgotten to complete the submission process by clicking the Submit Submission button in the last step.

The overview in the workflows provides an initial indication of this: In the first phase of the submission process, incomplete abstracts are displayed in red (Fig. 5, point 2).

To find out exactly which submissions these are, the submission overview is filtered to draft (submission) (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8: Filtering the abstract status for incomplete submissions

Why is only one incomplete abstract displayed in the workflows and four results filtered in the submission list? How does the different number come about?

In the workflows, only incomplete submissions are displayed for which an abstract content has also been entered or uploaded in step 2 of the submission process. In the list of papers, all submissions that were already cancelled in step 1 are also displayed, which is why the number is usually higher there. The column A in the list of papers shows for which entries an abstract content is available.

If the entries are obviously tests, incomplete entries can be deleted. Or the submission can be completed in the backend by changing the abstract status in the entry details from Draft to Created (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9: Changing the abstract status to Created

Definition of the evaluation criteria

Finally, the evaluation criteria still need to be defined. There are many possibilities in this regard, which will be explained in the following chapter.