0. Definitions and Clarifications

0.1 Escalation Structure

General Chairs > Program Chairs (i.e., Industry Program, Research Program, ...) >Track Chairs (Research Papers, Lightning Talks, Posters, Workshops/Tutorials, Experience Reports, etc.) > Review Committee Members.

0.2. Conflict of Interest (CoI)

To avoid any conflict of interest, a reviewer or person directly involved in the acceptance decision of a submission

• should not be from the same organization or departmental unit as the author of the submission or any of the co-authors;
• have been a supervisor or student of the author or any of the co-authors, within the past three years;
• have formally collaborated with the author or any of the co-authors,  within the past three years;
• be in any other potential conflict of interest (personal or financial).

 

0.3.   Clarification

Serving on the same review committees or attending the same conferences does not qualify as collaboration. If in doubt, escalate the potential conflict of interest along the escalation structure described above. Reviewers are expected to point out any potential conflict of interest as soon as they detect it. Given that a part of the review processes is double-blind, this might happen while they read the submission.

 

1. General Chairs

1.1. General Chairs are responsible for administering the CoI Policy for the whole conference.

1.2. In case of any disagreement or ambiguity, the final authority regarding the application of the CoI Policy resides with the General Chairs.

1.3. General Chairs may not submit work either alone or as a co-author/co-proposer to any of the conference tracks.

2.  Program Chairs

2.1. Program Chairs may submit work to any conference track except the tracks of which they are also a Track Chair.

2.2. Program Chairs will not be involved with acceptance decisions for submissions with which they have a CoI.

2.3. Program Chairs will not have access to the identities of the reviewers of a submission having them as a proposer or an author.

3. Track Chairs

3.1. Track Chairs are responsible for applying the CoI Policy for their track.

3.2. Track Chairs cannot submit work either alone or as a co-author/co-proposer to their own track.

3.3. Track Chairs will preserve the confidentiality granted to all the reviewers of their track with respect to the submissions involving the Review Committee Members of their track.

3.5. A Track Chair will not be involved in the acceptance decision of a submission with which they have a CoI.

3.4. Track Chairs may submit work to a track other than their own track.

3.6. If all Track Chairs of a track have a CoI with a submission to their track, they will defer the acceptance decision for that submission to the next body along the Escalation Structure.

4.  Review Committee Members 

4.1. Review Committee Members of a track may submit work to that track.

4.2. Review Committee Members will not have access to the identities of the reviewers of a submission if they are among the proposers or authors of that submission.

4.3. Review Committee Members will not be involved in the acceptance decisions of submissions with which they have a CoI.

5.  Review Process

5.1. All submissions subject to a competitive Call for Proposals or Call for Submissions will be reviewed by the review committee of the respective track.

5.1.1. Research papers will be selected using a double-blind peer review process.

5.2. The acceptance/rejection criteria should be decided before the submission deadline.

5.3. The conference may include sessions and host presentations not subject to these guidelines, for instance invited industry presentations, tool presentations, sponsor's presentations, and last-minute talks given by prominent speakers. However, these presentations shall not be included in full in the proceedings (abstracts may be included). The decisions about such sessions should be finalized by the Conference Program Committee (General Chair, Track Chairs and Program Chairs).