REQUIREMENTS

Requirement 1: No reviewer reviews any extended abstract (herein EA) that she/he authored, co-authored, advised or coached.  Each reviewer must alert the IPC Chairperson immediately if assigned one of these. 

Exception-General (applies to all Requirements and Guidelines): The IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson review all EAs; they must recuse themselves from their own EAs; they must indicate the nature of their involvement in each EA with which they have involvement. 
 
Requirement 2: No reviewer reviews any EA from a project or group or activity with which she/he is involved first-hand. 

Exception: If "special expertise" is required to understand the EA, this may be waived (however, we question whether the presentation would be "too niche" if we cannot find sufficient review expertise within the review panel to avoid this situation). 

Requirement 3: No client may review an EA from their supplier; no supplier may review an EA from their client. 

Requirement 4: No sponsor may review an EA from their organisation or from any of their clients. 

GUIDELINES

Guideline 1: No more than one reviewer from any single company or organisation may be assigned to a single EA. 

Guideline 2: Where possible at least one local-reviewer should be assigned to each EA (as a test for "local interest" ... as non-presenting ASWEC attendees are mostly local). 

Guideline 3: Where possible at least one regional-reviewer should be assigned to each EA (consistent with ASWEC's focus on Australasia). 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

Responsibility 1:  To acknowledge as soon as received, as soon as possible the following: 

Responsibility 2: Where there is a "conflict of interest" that cannot be avoided, each reviewer must document fully the type and extent of that conflict (this includes the IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson, who review every EA); this must be the first lines of the comments field. 

PROCESS

Each EA will be rated “Strong Accept” or “Accept” or “Reject” or “Strong Reject” by the three reviewers. 

Step 1: All EA with mostly "strong accepts" are *IN* [i.e., 3 x SA or (2 x SA and 1 x A)].  IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson review to ensure this is acceptable and consistent with their ratings; anything not consistent goes in the ToDiscuss pile, noting why it was sent there. 

Step 2: All EAs with mostly "strong rejects" are *OUT* [i.e., 3 SR or (2 x SR and 1 x R)].  IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson review to ensure this is acceptable and consistent with their ratings; anything not consistent goes in the ToDiscuss pile, noting why it was sent there. 

Milestone A: At this point, all the EAs that are obviously to be included are actually included and all those that are obviously to be excluded are actually excluded, excepting (as mentioned) those requiring discussion. 

Step 3: Anything with at least one "strong reject" goes in the LikelyReject pile.  IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson review to ensure this is acceptable and consistent with their ratings; anything not consistent goes in the ToDiscuss pile, noting why it was sent there. 

Step 4: Anything with at least one "strong accept" and no "strong reject" or "reject" goes in the LikelyAccept pile.  IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson review to ensure this is acceptable and consistent with their ratings; anything not consistent goes in the ToDiscuss pile, noting why it was sent there.

Milestone B: At this point, all the EAs that are “likely to be included” are likely to be included and those EAs that are “likely to be excluded” are likely to be excluded except (as mentioned) for those requiring discussion.   

Step 5: IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson discuss anything in the ToDiscuss pile, and make appropriate allocations (*IN*, Likely Accept, Likely Reject, *OUT*) and document rationale. 

Step 6: IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson review all EAs not yet allocated to one of the four piles; making a preliminary allocation to one of the four piles  (Easy process: Chairperson proposes; Co-Chairperson agrees or it goes in the ToDiscuss pile). 

Step 7: IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson discuss anything in the ToDiscuss pile, and make appropriate allocations (*IN*, Likely Accept, Likely Reject, *OUT*) and document rationale. 

Milestone C: At this point, every EA has been allocated to one of the four piles, now begin the negotiations and trading and etc-ing ... 

Step 8: IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson attempt to "build a programme" starting with *IN* EAs first, then LikelyAccept EAs  This includes integrating EAs into the research paper programme. This is based on the "gist" of the paper in addition to the author-identified key words.  Note: It is possible that will not be enough sessions to accommodate all LikelyAccept EAs in the programme. All *IN* EAs must fit into the programme. 

Step 9: The programme will be reviewed by the entire IPC.  Any suggested changes in accept/reject status must be reviewed/accepted by the IPC Chairperson and Co-Chairperson.

Step 10: IPC Chairperson and Research Chairperson review the programme.  Any suggested changes in accept/reject status must be reviewed/accepted by the IPC Co-Chairperson.

Step 11:  The entire IPC reviews this programme. Each IPC member must be able to assert that this is the best programme possible - maybe not ideal or perfect, but still the best programme possible, and that she/he would advocate attending this conference to her/his colleagues, clients, and friends.  If not return to Step 9. 

Milestone D:  Industry programme ready for approval. 

Step 12:  The Industry Programme is presented to the entire Organising Committee for initial approval (or modification). 

Step 13: If modifications are suggested by the OC they are to be considered by the full IPC and changes made if there is agreement.  If modifications are required then full IPC may consider how best to include the required changes (e.g. if any other changes are necessary) and presents revised industry programme to OC (or Chair(s)) for approval.  Repeat Step 12 and Step 13 until final approval given. 

Milestone E:  Industry programme accepted. 

-- ASWEC 2008 Industry Program Committee --
02/12/07