Call for Participation | Review Form

Below is the form that reviewers will be sent to assess work that has been submitted to CSCW 2013. We are making this publicly available so all CSCW contributors have access to the reviewing metrics. The live form will be available on PCS as usual.

Thank you for reviewing for CSCW 2013. Your job as a reviewer is to help create a quality technical program for the conference. We request that you review this submission with the following criteria in mind:

As you review this work, please concentrate on its potential contribution and on telling the authors what changes (if any) are required to achieve this potential. This is crucial, as many authors will have the chance to revise and resubmit their papers.

This year there is no page limit for Papers, nor is there a distinction between Papers and Notes. Therefore, your review should state whether the length of the paper is appropriate for its contribution. If you think the paper would be better if it were lengthened or shortened, please say so, and be clear about what additional content is required or what current content should be removed.

Technical quality rating - Rate the literature review, methodology, analysis and discussion

5 - Excellent: few or no problems

4 - Good: small problems

3 - Fair: noticeable problems

2 - Weak: significant problems

1 - Poor: critical problems

Engagement rating - Rate how engaging this paper is in terms of topic, narrative, and fit with CSCW

5 - This submission is very engaging, important, thought-provoking, or original.

4 - With minor modification, this will be engaging, important, thought-provoking, or original.

3 - This could engage a narrow segment of the audience.

2 - Significant revision would be required to make it engaging.

1 - It is unlikely that this will engage the conference audience.

Current Overall Recommendation

5 - Definitely acceptable with simple modifications.

4 - Probably acceptable with some modifications.

3 - Maybe acceptable: significant modifications needed.

2 - Probably NOT acceptable.

1 - Definitely NOT acceptable.

How likely do you think it is that the authors can make this paper acceptable for the conference in one month?

5 - Definitely can be made acceptable in one month.

4 - Probably can be made acceptable in one month.

3 - Not sure whether can be made acceptable in one month.

2 - Probably CANNOT be made acceptable in one month.

1 - Definitely CANNOT be made acceptable in one month.

Writing Quality-Rate this submission for the overall quality of the spelling, grammar, terminology, tables, figures, and organization of material. Please provide specific feedback in your detailed review.

5 - Excellent.

4 - Good.

3 - Fair.

2 - Poor.

1 - Bad.

Expertise-Provide your expertise in the topic area of this submission.

4 - Expert.

3 - Knowledgeable.

2 - Passing Knowledge.

1 - No Knowledge.

The review:

Write your review of the submission here. Indicate what is good in this work, and be very specific about what needs to be fixed or improved. If you believe revisions are needed to make this paper acceptable, be clear what these revisions are! CSCW is a diverse community, so clarity and a positive tone will help authors understand and act on your feedback.

Papers Co-chairs
Loren Terveen, University of Minnesota
Cliff Lampe, University of Michigan