Peer review

• We’ll conduct peer review through an informal system (Google spreadsheet + form). I will e-mail with instructions!
• If we were running a real conference, your papers would be evaluated by a program committee. The program committee is a group of people who read the submitted papers then comment on them and give them scores, in order to determine whether the paper should be accepted to the conference. (Program committees are often formed of academic and/or professional experts in the conference’s subject area. Or sometimes they’re just made up of whatever warm bodies the conference organizers could find.)
• For our class, every student will be on our “program committee.” You’ll review the drafts of two other students.
• Every conference has slightly different criteria for evaluating papers. But the overall most important criterion is: Does this paper contribute to the field of study? For our class, every project potentially concerns multiple and overlapping fields of study. So maybe our main criterion instead will be: Does this paper contribute to the field of Interactive Media Arts?
• We’re not running a real conference, and all of your papers will be “accepted.” I’m also not going to ask you to give numerical scores to each other’s papers. But I still think it’s important for everyone to have experience both accepting and giving feedback in this format.
• We’re also evaluating unfinished papers. This isn’t uncommon; conferences often accept and review paper or presentation proposals, rather than full papers. Evaluate what’s in front of you, but keep in mind what the paper will become when complete.
• What criteria should we evaluate on? (We’ll build the form collaboratively as a class.) Suggestions: Overall evaluation, methodological clarity, feasibility.
• Recommended: So You’re a Program Committee Member Now: On Excellence in Reviews and Meta-Reviews and Championing Submitted Work That Has Merit