SBC events usually adopt the JEMS system. Unfortunatelly, it does not support a review process (zero-blind) witch is (i) open -- zero-blind; (ii) incremental -- the review remains available for authors by the time it is registered by any reviewer; and (iii) iterative -- both reviewers and authors can add comments and answers to questions raised in the review process. This page brings instructions to reviewers and authors to overcome such open peer review limitations of the JEMS system.
Differently from the traditional peer review process, in this workshop we encourage authors and reviewers engage on a review discussion through one or more rounds after the review submission deadline (the review phase). Next, reviewers only should discuss whether they accept or not each paper under review. Finally, each reviewer can add they decision regrarding the paper acceptance up to final deadline.
The reviewer assignment and the monitoring of the reviewing activities and papers discusions on papers authored by any of the workshop chairs are under the responsability with the Prof. Adenilso Simao, who is included as a co-chair in the JEMS system.
Observation: authors and reviewers should *not* comunicate outside of the JEMS system. Reviewers should not contact authors neither authors should contact reviewers directly. We would like to have the history of revisions and interactions registered in JEMS only.
1.1 The reviews can be visualized by the co-reviewers and paper authors as soon as they are submitted to the JEMS system. The authors will have access to grades and reviewer comments, except those made directly for the TPC in the "3:TPC: Comments for TPC members only" section.
1.2 Each reviewer must name (him/her)self to authors in the first revision they submit to JEMS. The information should be placed and maintained in the first line of the text in the "2: Comments to authors" section, as follows:
### Review by Fulano de tal. ### // 1st. line with the reviewer identification
1.3 During the reviewing phase, the reviewer can add and maintain a note "1: This paper is under review (not completed yet)" for the evaluation itens "Relevance for the workshop" and "What's your position about this paper?" until the reviewing deadline, when the final grade must be submitted to JEMS.
1.4 During the reviewing phase, the reviewer can interact with other reviewers and the paper authors only through JEMS.
1.5 The review history must remain registered in the system and visible to other reviewers and the authors. However, JEMS does not support review history directly. Therefore, all review updates must be included in the beggining of the "2: Comments to authors" field (after the reviewer indentification) including the date of the update (in the format DD/MM/AAAA in between brackets and before the actual update text) so we can maintain the history. Here is an example:
### Review by Fulano de tal. ### // 1st. line with the reviewer identification
[10/08/21] free text // update for the review of the paper XYZ.
[06/08/21] free text // update for the review of the paper XYZ.
[05/08/21] free text // update for the review of the paper XYZ.
1.6 Reviewers and authors should be notified about updates in the JEMS system. However, there is no support for such kind of notification in JEMS. Thus, the workshop chairs will forward the notification to both reviewers and authors through "send email" functionality of JEMS to each paper with review undergoing. Reviewers can also be proactive and consult the reviewing state directly at JEMS.
1.7 Reviewers can interact through the "Write a discussion message" functionality and be notified about new messages registered at JEMS. Meanwhile, such discussions won't be visible to the paper authors.
2.1 During this reviewing phase, the interaction among reviewers and authors is allowed and it can be done through one or more rounds.
2.2 The interaction among authors and reviewers of a paper must happen in the JEMS system only.
2.3 Authors can comment and answer to reviewers' questions through the link "Write or edit rebuttal", as soon as a the first review becomes available. The text with the authors' answers can have at most 10000 characters (limit defined by the JEMS system).
2.4 The history of the answers updates of the authors should also be
registered and visible to reviewers, but there is no direct support for this
track record at JEMS. Thus, in the text to reviewers, the authors should
follow the instructions described in the item 1.5 above: date format
[DD/MM/ANO], followed by
2.5 As mentioned in the item 1.6, for each paper under review, the workshop chairs will forward the received notifications from JEMS using the "send email" functionality of the JEMS system. Authors can also be proactive and consult regularly the review state of their paper directly at the JEMS system.
2.6 The interaction among reviewers and authors ends on Autgust 7th.
3.1 By the end of the reviewing phase, after the interaction among reviewers and authors, it starts the discussion phase of three days, where the reviewer (if needed) can still interact with other reviewers through the "Write a discussion message" link, finishing the individual review and grades for the paper. Authors won't have access to discussion messagens among reviewers.
If you still have any doubts regrarding this process, you can reach the workshop chairs by mail (opensciense@gmail.com).