Paper Review Process

Upon initial submission, the Papers chairs (PCs) and Subcommittee chairs (SCs) will determine whether the submission is appropriate for ICPMGET or should be desk rejected. Desk rejects are made to save our reviewers' time.

Reasons for desk rejection:

• Incomplete submissions.
• The paper lacks anonymization — leaving the author names in the paper or having a description or an acknowledgements section that reveals authors or the institution.
• Failure of declaration of concurrent submissions that are closely related to the submission.
• Failure of declaration and/or citation of authors' prior publications that are closely related to the submission.
• Use of wrong formats.
• Clearly out of scope for the conference.
• Not written in English.
• Obviously not a conference paper (patent disclosure, popular press article, a complete book, etc.).
• Something is so broken in the paper that makes it impossible to review.

For the submissions that are not desk rejected, SCs will check whether each of them has been submitted to an appropriate subcommittee with sufficient expertise to review. In rare cases, SCs will transfer papers that were initially assigned to their subcommittee to the secondary subcommittee chosen by the authors for more appropriate reviews.

All SCs and ACs are instructed to declare their conflicts of interests based on institutions and previous collaborations during the paper bidding phase. ACs are also instructed to express their preferences (or bids) on which submissions they would like to review. It is very important for authors to write titles and abstracts that clearly convey the core contributions of their submissions.

The 1AC and 2AC will collaboratively check if a submission is a candidate for quick reject. Each paper will have at least 4 distinct, non-conflicted people (ACs, SCs, and PCs) that will have looked at any paper that is a potential quick reject, and all must agree that the paper would not have a chance of acceptance.

This quick reject process allows us to offer rapid feedback to authors so that they can resubmit to other venues and also enables our reviewers to focus on submissions that have a high chance of improving and impacting the community.

Criteria for quick reject:

• ICPMGET contribution is much too small given the length of the submitted paper (we expect papers on average 4 to 10 pages).
• Grossly insufficient detail to replicate the apparatus or the experiment.
• Grossly insufficient data to validate the analysis to support the claim.
• Grossly insufficient literature review to contextualize and/or evaluate the proposed novelty.
• Paper is very sloppy: lots of typos, missing references, formatting issues.

The 1AC will manage the review process and recruit two external reviewers to assess each submission that undergoes full review. The 2AC will provide a full review like the external reviewers. Papers are placed into one of the following categories:

Authors of the papers with the Revise and Resubmit decisions are invited to submit a revision by the resubmission deadline. The authors may communicate anonymously through the submission system with the 1AC for clarifications.

All the resubmissions will be reviewed by the original set of ACs and external reviewers. The result of the second round review is either: