2017 ACL 2017:ACs to start checking, 2nd

From Admin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sent to Track Chairs.

Subject:

Attachment: 2017_ACL_2017:170208-acl17-inviteGeneric.txt


Dear [reviewerFirstName] [reviewerLastName],

[ Sorry for the long AC FAQ email -- please read all of it ]

Thanks to many of you whom we've heard from and have acknowledged the work.  We rely on your constant communication and help to keep the conference reviewing on track.  We've received your queries to our instructions and to keep everyone on the same page, I'm using this batch reply to keep you all synced as to our current working flow.  

You may see paraphrased versions of your queries from those who asked follow-ups.  If you don't see your question answered, ask!

- Regina and Min

> 1. You have to work two separate portals for long and short papers (where are the short papers??):
1) https://www.softconf.com/acl2017/papers/track/<TRACKNAME>/manager/
2) https://www.softconf.com/acl2017/shortpapers/track/<TRACKNAME>/manager
(if yes, might be useful to share this with all ACs)

> 2. I guess we need E more reviewers? (A*3 = B reviews and you mention we have C "Available Assigned Reviews (High)" so we need B-C = D reviews so D/4 = E reviewers?).

Ans: Yes, that's basically right.  However, you will note that we *assumed* that people who didn't reply to the survey form can take the max load of 4.  This is probably not true (and probably you don't want to harangue well intentioned reviewers to complete 4 papers in two weeks).  In the "A Stats" sheet, the "Available Assigned Reviews (Low)", gives the more conservative estimate; we'd aim for trying to cover somewhere between these two bounds.

> 3a. How do we know which reviewers are available from the R tab? I.e., which column tells us that?

Ans: The available reviewers are the ones marked with yellow cells in the "AC Suggest" column (Column F in the 'R' sheet).  When we (PC Chairs) have decided to assign a reviewer on your input, the decision will be reflected in the 'Assignment' (Column S), from which the 'A Stats' sheet calculates the area load and surplus/shortfall figures.   

> 3b. Where can I find the status (accept/decline/invited) of ALL reviewers? 

Note that the current 'R' worksheet is filtered for only those reviewers who we know (as of 2 day ago) have accepted to review.  I (Min) need to do another pass to collect people since then [so you may see new names pop up later]. To check other names for their accept/decline/invited status, we suggest copying the 'R' worksheet to a safe place for your area and then undo the filter so you can work without affecting others.  

> 4. We would like to invite: prospective reviewer XX (to cover areas not covered by <OUR AREA>'s current reviewers and request that reviewer YY be moved from <OTHER AREA> -> <OUR AREA>.

Ans: For XX if they are not listed in other areas (again see 3's Ans), you can invite them or ask us to invite them on your behalf.   START has quite a steep learning curve, so here's the steps to invite a new, unlisted reviewer: 

a. Go to your track Committee Scratchpad
b. Go to the Import Tab to add information about the person.
c. When you submit, the prospective reviewer will appear in the Manage tab.
d. In the Manage tab, actually invite the reviewer through the form at the bottom of the page, which will lead you to an email page.  Modify the invitation letter that we have sent -- appended as an attachment as it specifies some of the important characteristics of the review process (TPMS, short review cycle). 
e. When the invitation is shown as 'accepted', please notify us (Regina and Min) of the reviewer that has been added.

For YY, if <OTHER AREA> has a surplus and agrees, we will move YY to <OUR AREA>.  We will CC: you on an email asking for this.

> 5. There are formatting problems with Submissions X1, .... XN

Thanks for raising this with us -- this is exactly what information we need.  We will check these, and act accordingly to a unified policy across all policies.  Please raise all infractions that you see so that we can check them individually.  You may suggest what you think is appropriate to help guide us.

> 6. Paper Y1, ... YN belong better in <OTHER AREA>

Thanks for raising this with us -- this is exactly what information we need.    We will check these, with the other area and attempt to move them if they concur (i.e., you may receive emails from us regarding this).

Appendix - Just to be clear, we've heard from the following areas, with respect to the following
Area1: ...
AreaN: ...

--
ACL 2017 Long Papers - https://www.softconf.com/acl2017/papers
ACL 2017 Short Papers - https://www.softconf.com/acl2017/shortpapers