Reviewer Guide

Table of Contents:
  1. « Review Criteria »
  2. « Review Process» (OCS)
  3. « Review System "Tips"»

  1. Review Criteria

    Please take a balanced approach when reading these submissions. One of our objectives is to have a solid program that meets the needs of both metadata researchers and practitioners. As a result, it is important for you to be thorough. However, we also want a broad and interesting program--so please do not be overly judgmental.

    You were selected to serve on the committee because you are an expert in your field. You probably received submissions which are not up to your personal standards. However, some of those submissions may still have merit for the DCMI community. Please try to keep an open mind. Don't worry about recommending too many submissions. If you think a submission will be interesting to conference attendees, then recommend it. Please be decisive in your reviews—either you think a submission is adequate or you think it is not. That will help the Program Committee to reach an accept/decline decision, which will in turn be more easily understood by the authors of the submission.

    It is the responsibility of a reviewer to note: (a) any errors in content; (b) to provide constructive criticism of ideas and interpretations; and (c) to comment on the organization and clarity of the text. Constructive criticism should be such that it helps the author to improve the work—even if you think that the submission should not be accepted. A review that provides a suggested decision to accept or decline and provides no constructive criticism is not useful to either the Program Chairs or to the authors.

    It is not the responsibility of a reviewer to correct the technical errors in writing but to note whether such errors exist to alert the author and the Program Committee of the need for further editing. A common approach that many reviewers take is to provide a brief overview of the content followed by a more detailed and systematic list of comments (negative and positive) and corrections. Such a list is even more important when your recommendation is to decline the submission or to accept with revisions. This information is essential for both: (1) the Program Committee to handle conflicting reviews; and (2) for the authors to understand the results of the review and to improve the submission.

    Please note:

    1. submissions to DCMI conferences need not be limited to research and applications dealing with the Dublin Core set of properties but may address more general metadata issues of concern to the metadata community;

    2. submissions should never be rejected because they are too technical or too theoretical (i.e., lacking in direct, practical application) since the DCMI community has members that explore and implement innovations is metadata from design and technical implementation through best practices in application.

    Please use the following criteria in evaluating the submissions:

    Presentations:

    Reviews of Presentations are expected to be briefer than those for peer reviewed Full Papers, Project Reports and Posters but should be sufficient to support the reviewer's proposed decision to accept or reject.

    • Of likely interest and concern to a significant number of conference attendees
    • A strong likelihood of successful presentation.

    Full Papers:

    • Originality of the approach to implementation
    • Generalizability of the methods and results described
    • Quality of the contribution to the implementation community
    • Significance of the results presented
    • Clarity of presentation

    Project Reports:

    • Conciseness and completeness of technical description
    • Usability of the technical description by other potential implementers
    • Clarity of presentation

    Posters

    • Concise statement of research or project goals and milestones
    • Significance of the research or project
    • Framing of key barriers and future research
    • Statement of results and accomplishments

    The reviewer guidelines appear at the bottom of each of submission page.

    Review Criteria
    « Larger image »


  2. Reviewer Process (Online System)
    • DCMI uses the Open Conference System (OCS) for the conference website and managing the peer review process.

    • Each of you already has an account on the OCS. If you need assistance logging in, contact Stuart Sutton (sasutton@dublincore.net)

    • The process for accessing assigned submissions, accepting/declining the assignment and handling the review process takes five steps. Your work area for each sumbission looks like the following screenshot:

      Review Work Area
      « Larger image »

    • The following sections describe the technical steps in the peer review process:

    1. Review Request Email

      • For each assigned review, you will receive a separate email notification with the subject line: "[DC-2016] Paper Review Request"


        « Larger image »

      • The request email contains the following information:

        • Title and abstract of the submission (bottom of email).

        • The due-date for the review.

        • A direct URL to the individual submission.

        • An important request that you click the submission link within one week of receiving the request email and complete Step #1 by accepting/declining the individual review request. You must individually accept/decline each assigned review.

        • Following the instructions in the review request email, access your account and select one of the assigned reviews by clicking on its title in the table. You will find a link to the assigned review file in Step #3—Submission Manuscript as illustrated below:

          Review Steps
          « Larger image »

    2. Accepting/Declining a Review Assignments

      • The first, and most immediate task is to quickly review the submission and decide whether you will accept or decline the invitation to review this specific submission.

      • In Step #1, you must "respond" to the invitation. There are two envelop icons—one for "will do the review" and the other for "unable to do the review".

        Review Criteria
        « Larger image »

      • There are various reasons why you might decide that you cannot review:
        • The review is so far outside your area of expertise that you are uncomfortable reviewing; or

        • You have a conflict of interest that you feel disqualifies you as a reviewer.

      • Clicking on the correct mail icon opens an email message to the Program Committee chairs notifying them of your decision. You may edit the email if you wish to tailor it to your circumstances.

      • Be sure to click the "Send" button.

      • Note: Until you send this accept/decline email, some links in the subsequent steps will not be active; and, the Program Chairs will not know that they may have to assign an alternate reviewer.

    3. Writing the Review

      • When you are ready to enter your review, click the icon is Step #4—Review and the review form will open:

        Review Criteria
        « Larger image »

      • The form has two text-entry boxes.

        • The top text-entry box will contain those aspects of your review that you want to share with both the author and the Program Chairs; and

        • Your comments in the bottom text-entry box will be seen only by the Program Chairs and should include any "Best Paper" award recommendation (discussed below).

      • Review text may be saved and opened again later for editing up to the point of submission of the review. "Saving" your work does not submit the work to the Program Chairs. You must specifically "Send" the review to the Program Chairs in Step #6.

      • Review form text cannot be changed by the reviewer after submission in Step #6.

      • Please, do not use the file upload function in Step #5

    4. Providing an Overall Recommendation

      • Before the review can be submitted, you must select an overall recommendation for the submission.

        Review Criteria
        « Larger image »

        • Accept Submission: Select this option if you think that the submission can be published as it was submitted with no revisions or suggested refinements. (Note: Few submissions meet this high standard. Most can benefit from some refinement based on reviewer advice.)

        • Accept Submission with Revisions: Select this option if you think the submission is already acceptable but can be improved through suggested revisions.

        • Decline Submission: Decline a submission if in your opinion it does not meet requirements or is otherwise unsuitable. Decline a submission even if it holds promise or is potentially interesting but requires substantial revisions to be acceptable. DCMI peer review process does not include a second round of review for "conditional accepts".

    5. Click "Submit Review to Director"


  3. Review System "Tips"
    • When I click on the icon to enter my review text, nothing happens.

      1. The icon that opens the review entry template is not active until you have completed Step #1 and accepted the review assignment.

      2. You may already have a review entry template open somewhere on your desktop. This occurs when you have a template open and go off to some other task that then covers the template on the screen. Check your desktop.





DCMI logo DCMI's work is supported, promoted and improved by « Member organizations » around the world:

The National Library of Finland The National Library of Korea The National Library Board Singapore
Shanghai Library Simmons College GSLIS (US) Information School of the University of Washington
SUB Goettingen Research Center for Knowledge Communities, Tsukuba University Infocom Corporation (Japan)
UNESP (Brazil) Universisty of Edinburgh

DCMI logo DCMI's annual meeting and conference addresses models, technologies and applications of metadata

Join logo
Become a DCMI