logseq/pages/MODELS 2023 - First round of discussion.md

• Please remember that until
  • we have to do the following:
    • Read all the reviews carefully. As they will be sent to authors, it is important that by the end of the first online discussion round
      • scores reflect the content of the review, for instance, a generally positive review text should not be accompanied by a negative score.
      • there are no unnecessary wildly contradictory scores and/or comments in reviews.
      • reviewers do not use scores to either a) signal the strength of their conviction to other reviewers, or b) compensate for other reviewer scores to move the aggregate score into their preferred direction, but instead provide a pure face value score.
    • Work with reviewers to move their scores towards a consensus, as long as the adjustments are compatible with their professional assessment. Please ask them to revise the content of their reviews if this becomes necessary as a result of observations made or shifting viewpoints during the online discussion.
    • Write meta-reviews.
      • • If, at the end of the first round of discussion on 4 June, all review scores for a submission are negative, the submission becomes an "early reject". Such submissions will not proceed to any further phases, i.e., in particular, they will not lead to invitations to provide an author response. In this case, please write the final meta-review including a very brief summary of the reviewer’s main points, a justification for the final decision, and possibly, action points for the authors’ future work.
      • • If there is at least one positive score, use the meta-review to elicit an author response. This kind of meta-review includes
        • a very brief summary of the reviewer’s main points,
        • a list of weaker aspects of the submission that the reviewers would like to see clarified in order to increase their score or confidence, and
        • up to five questions for the authors.