Instructions and Answers for EDAS

Track Chairs

What should Track Chairs be Doing?
Please watch your Tracks to make sure papers receive adequate reviews. The following is the process:

• Log into EDAS. Go to the Tab “My TPC’s” Under the column “Conference (reviews assigned and requested)”
• Click on the link “ICCE 2011”.
• On the next page, click on the very small “You can list all papers” link. You will then find all the papers for your Track.
• On the link for each paper, you can see the reviews, notify the reviewers, assign new reviewers, etc.
• If you have any problems with this process, please let us know.

How Can A Track Chair review papers not in his Track?
By doing this:

• Under My TPC's, click on the link under "reviews requested" .
• That will bring up Tabs at the top.
• Click on the Papers Tab, and the List, and then List at the bottom of that page,
• Then you'll get all the papers, and probably can find more of what you would like to review.

How can a Track Chair see if a paper is an oral or poster?
If the author indicated one or the other, the Track Chair can see by doing this:

• Under My TPC's, click on the link under "reviews requested" .
• That brings up Tabs at the top.
• Click on the Papers Tab, and the List, and check the box "category" and
• Then List at the bottom of that page,
• Then you'll get all the papers, and you can see if they indicated oral or poster

How do Track Chairs see the reviews they have assigned?
They appear on their personal home page when they log into EDAS.

How can I register for the TPC meeting?
Under 'My TPCs', follow the icon under 'TPC meeting'. No special conference configuration is needed for this feature.

How can Track Chairs assign a reviewer to a paper?
TPC members may only assign a regular reviewer to a paper for which they have been assigned a TPC review. Under the "My TPCs" tab, click on the date in the "Reviews due" field to bring up the page listing the papers assigned to you. Click on the paper number to bring up a web page showing details about the paper. Under the heading "Reviews", click on and type in the name of the person whom you would like to review the paper. You can either use the first name, last name or both. You will be given a list of choices of existing EDAS members that match the description. If none of them is your desired reviewer, you can enter information, such as affiliation and email address, for the new reviewer. A new password will be mailed to the new reviewer so that he or she can log into EDAS. Once you have identified the person, you will be shown the email message that will be sent to the reviewer. You can adjust the message, for example, to change the salutation or add special instructions. The reviewer will receive an email message inviting him or her to accept or decline the review. Once the reviwer has accepted the review, he or she will be offered the review form. Reviewers do not need to register ahead of time.

What is the difference between the many roles a TPC member can have?
TPC members have four levels of privilege:

• (TPC) chair - manages and configures conference; can inspect any paper; can assign reviewers to any paper; is assigned reviews only if that flag is checked.
• Group leader - can inspect papers, change the paper status and assign reviews to papers within his or her TPC group. A group leader cannot notify authors or configure the conference.
• TPC member - can be assigned TPC reviews and may have special privileges to see reviews and to assign regular reviews to papers; TPC members can be assigned to TPC groups and can register for the TPC meeting. TPC members can be assigned to a specific track and then only see papers for that track.
• (designated) reviewer - has no special privileges, but appears in the reviewer selection list. Designated reviewers do not appear on the TPC listing.

Review questions can be designated as being viewable by role, e.g., only by a chair or TPC member.

All types of TPC members are only part of the automatic paper assignment if they are flagged as reviewing papers. That is the default for reviewers and TPC members, but not for group leaders and chairs.

Reviewers:
What you should do first as a Reviewer

• You must first log into the system and declare your areas of interest, which are divided into three categories, interested, neutral and not interested.
• Do this by going to "My TPC's" and click on the link under "Interests/edit".
• Then EDAS marks all papers that have at least one topic that interests you.
• Then please go to http://edas.info/C.php?c=8993 to claim the papers you would like to review. You should be on the “Claim Paper” screen. If not, Click on “My TPCs”. Under “Want/Can/If needed(claim)”, click on the link. There you will see the papers listed according to your areas of interest.
• Under "Paper", if a paper title is of interest, click on the icon under “Get Abstracts”. After the abstract is shown, if you want to review it, click in the blank colored space under “Want to Review”, or any other appropriate column.
• At the bottom of the page you will see your total claims.
• After the claim process is completed, papers will be assigned to you for review.
• Under "My TPC's", click on the link in the Column " Reviews due (review)". There you will see the list of papers you can review.
• Please let us know if you have any questions or problems with the process

I am a reviewer. How do I participate in a discussion about a paper?
From the full paper view page, click on the balloon icon at the bottom. You will then be able to fill out your discussion comment. The comment will appear in the discussion list at the bottom of the paper view page, viewable by other reviewers of the paper, TPC members and/or chairs, depending on configuration. It will also be emailed to these same people.

I can't see (some of) my reviews. What's going on?
A likely cause is that you have two different EDAS identities (user names). Please contact the EDAS administrator at help@edas-help.com. Another possibility is that the review has been assigned to you, but reviewers have not been notified yet. Reviews are only visible to the reviewer once the assigner or chair has notified the reviewer, either individually or via Reviews/Notify. The chair should check whether the review is marked as 'notified' or 'confirmed'.

What do the review status colors mean?
Review status is indicated by color: review assigned, reviewer notified, review confirmed by reviewer, review declined, review delegated to somebody else, review completed, reviewer reminded. review late.

What does "minor revision" or "major revision" mean?
Some conferences and journals mark papers as "minor revision" or "major revision". The precise meaning of these status values depends on the conference or journal, so the chair should be consulted if there are questions. Generally, these indicate that the author needs to make changes to the paper before the paper can be published. Sometimes, a "major revision" indicates that another review may be required.

What does the similarity score mean?

• The similarity score indicates how much the paper resembles other papers, expressed in a number from 0 (no similarity) to 100 (fully identical to another paper).
• The number is derived by a similarity checking tool. Typically, numbers above 25 indicate that substantial parts of the paper have been found elsewhere.
• The similarity check is a tool that simplify does text comparisons against other published papers and reports (using Google).
• It is then up to the chair or a committee to decide whether any textual similarities are legitimately-credited quotations from work done by others, appropriate re-use of the author's own work (e.g., a technical report or a workshop paper might appear in parts in a conference paper), self-plagiarism or plagiarism. The latter two are serious lapses of professional ethics and may, depending on the customs and procedures of the professional society sponsoring the conference or journal, lead to the withdrawal of the paper, a public apology by the author (if the paper has already been published), a letter to the academic supervisor of the student or faculty and possibly a publication ban for a set time period. The IEEE policies spell out how plagiarism is defined and what consequences may ensue if it is detected. ACM's policy on plagiarism also addresses this topic.
  

Who gets notified when a reviewer accepts or rejects a review?
The person who assigned the review. Typically, for reviews assigned automatically, this is the chair of conference. For reviews assigned by TPC members, it is the TPC member. For reviews that are delegated, it's the person that delegated the paper.

How can I unassign (delete) a reviewer?
On the main paper web page, each review status summary has a in the right-most column. Click on this icon to delete the review.

What is the difference between a (regular) review and a meta review?
EDAS allows to configure two kinds of reviews for a conference, a (regular) review and a meta review. The name of the meta review can be customized for each conference; some conferences call them "review summaries" or "TPC reviews". Each paper can have any number of reviews of either kind. The two review types are similar, but can have different review forms, i.e., different questions. Many conferences will only need a regular review, which can be performed either by a TPC member or an outside reviewer. Larger conferences may assign several reviewers to a paper, providing regular reviews. A single TPC member is then assigned to each paper to provide a summary of all reviews and recommend acceptance or rejection in the meta reviews. The latter is configured as a meta review. Only TPC members can provide meta reviews.

What's the difference between delegating and assigning a review? TPC members and chairs can assign reviews. If a TPC member assigns a review, he or she remains responsible for his or her own review. The assigned review appears as an additional review. Reviewers and TPC members can also delegate their review. In that case, the review becomes the responsibility of the new reviewer. The number of reviews for the paper remains the same.

Why is the link for accepting and declining review assignments the same?
In order to accept or decline a review assignment, the candidate reviewer is directed to a web-page where he or she can decide if to accept or decline the review by clicking on one of two buttons. Same page (link), two different buttons.

Review Examples:

.
Example set 1 – Good underlying idea but poor CE Applicability

Although the underlying idea is interesting this doesn't really provide anything which is relevant to modern CE systems or designs.

The required usage of this solution and the user workflow suggest this could not be developed as it stands to provide a workable CE solution. In turn this means it would be of marginal interest to an ICCE audience.

Unfortunately this paper doesn't have any relevance to state-of-art CE systems or devices.

It would be more suitable for a conference on distributed computing systems or semantic web techniques.

ICCE is about consumer ELECTRONICS not simply about CONSUMER technologies. However thank you for your contribution to our conference.

It is probably better to avoid phrases like "Really Silly PseudoTechnical Buzz-Word" in the title of a paper; if you said a self-learning or self-improving algorithm it would be easier for readers to understand what your paper is about.

The idea is somewhat interesting but I think that the practical application is difficult to conceptualize.For an ICCE presentation you should think about providing a better explanation of how this might be used or be relevant to practical CE devices/systems.

I'm aware of various approaches to substitute for XYZ, but even if your proposed alternative offers improved performance it was not clear to me form this abstract if this is important enough a problem to require modification of the existing PQR standards.

Industry standards are worked on by a committee of representatives from all interested parties and while they might not always be the most technically efficient solution, the point is that they are the "agreed" solution. While it is an interesting idea the requirement to initialize XYZ implies an awkward workflow for practical CE applications.

Example Set 2 – Not a great paper at all, at all.

I couldn't figure out what your contribution was; it seems you are playing around with XYZ to see if it helps PQR work better, but your descriptions of your experiences are very vague and do not provide much useful information; neither does the abstract inspire confidence that you will have progressed this work for ICCE in January.

There is not very good technical explanation of what you are doing.

There is a somewhat cryptic "Table/Figure/Graph" but most of these terms are undefined. I am an Engineer, not a telepath.

After reading through the abstract a couple of times I still could not figure out exactly what you are doing (I think you are enabling XYZ on a wireless/mobile handset to do PQR, but as I say it wasn't quite clear).

I also could not figure out what your were doing that was new/novel - there is quite a lot of work on such applications so you need to clarify your contribution.

It seems to me that you've implemented a known algorithm in a mobile device which doesn't really show any significant contribution. It is also a bit difficult to see the connection with CE devices, systems or services? I don't see the reason why you do this on a mobile phone rather than a home computer? Bottom line I think this would be better submitted to an image processing conference rather than ICCE.

I am sorry but this paper really has nothing to do with Consumer Electronics devices or systems. Although this is a practical idea it is not really a new one.

Researchers in my group built a similar XYZ system on a PQR framework 5-6 years ago. This would be of somewhat minor interest to ICCE delegates who are current in home networking techniques.

Example Set 3 – Weak paper, but may have a chance of acceptance

You have made a connection between the operation of a XYZ and the home networking environment. However the idea of PQR for XYZ is not a particularly new concept so the technical contribution is quite modest.

This paper describes a system for XYZ. The design of this chipset is also described. In general ICCE is not about hardware design and while this is an interesting system it is not exactly in the scope of consumer electronics (really industrial electronics). However the paper may be of interest to some ICCE delegates so I did not penalize it unduly.

This technique is presented as a post-processing of digital images. In fact many imaging device now preform this sort of correction during image acquisition when it is possible to dynamically adjust exposure and even capture more than one image. Nevertheless this technique offers an alternative approach and may be of interest to some ICCE delegates.

Example Set 4 – Ideas need some improvement(s) if they are presented at ICCE (but are basically OK)

As ICCE is an engineering conference I would have liked to see a bit more technical depth to the presentation. Hopefully that will be fixed for a presentation at the conference?

Interesting paper on XYZ - you claim these will be adopted in PQR devices. but I would prefer to have industry tell me this. However the underlying technique seems to have other CE applications as well.

The paper is quite readable and the techniques should be interesting to some ICCE delegates.

It would be helpful to have a bit more background on how you see this technology being further developed for MEMS production and you envisage it being incorporated into, say, a handheld device? Hopefully this material can added for an ICCE presentation?

Interesting paper and you implement and test a practical example. I can see how this might work within an integrated Home Networking environment but it would be good if you could provide more context for this with CE applications and example workflows - this would increase its appeal to ICCE delegates.

Example Set 5 – I like it, I like it!

Interesting paper on XYZ for PQR.

This paper aligns nicely with our invited session on HIJK technologies.

Thank you for contributing to ICCE; your paper will be very good as an introduction to XYZ for the ICCE audience.

Interesting to see how XYZs are progressing; I worked on PQR project about 8 years ago when XYZ were not so well developed so this paper will help me understand new developments in this field.

2011 International Conference on Consumer Electronics | Contact US