Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Standard Reviewing Procedures The final acceptance decision for a paper can be taken by following different alternative peer-reviewing processes (these review processes are implemented for both conferences and journals). The standard setup can be described as follows: while authors are usually not aware of the reviewers' identity (so-called blind review setting), reviewers may be aware of the authors' identity or not, resulting in single-blind or double-blind review processes, respectively. In the rare cases when the authors are aware of the reviewers' identity, the reviewing process is considered zero-blind. Other feasible alternatives are characterized by the amount of stages implemented before the acceptance decision is made (single-stage vs. multi-stage review processes) and the public visibility of review comments (open/public vs. closed review processes). The actual process of finding agreement regarding the papers' acceptance or rejection has also a certain bandwidth, ranging from delegating the responsibility of the decision-making to few people over staged committee and board setups to organizing physical/virtual meetings involving many people.
|
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2020 | 10.1145/3375572.3375575 | ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes |
Field | DocType | Volume |
Software engineering,Computer science | Journal | 45 |
Issue | ISSN | Citations |
1 | 0163-5948 | 0 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.34 | 0 | 3 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jacopo Soldani | 1 | 190 | 27.66 |
| Marco Kuhrmann | 2 | 374 | 48.18 |
| Dietmar Pfahl | 3 | 0 | 1.35 |