Review process: All submissions are reviewed anonymously, and any reviewer who knows the author of a submission under review issues a recusal. Different voting processes pertain to the different types of submissions.
Program-unit submissions (panels, seminars, workshops, roundtables, new organizer-refereed panels) are reviewed by the Program Committee in three phases. Before its June meeting these submissions are read and rated by four committee members chosen by the Program Committee chair. Submissions that received a mixed rating (neither wholly positive nor wholly negative) are then read and rated by the full committee; those with wholly positive or negative ratings in the first round are provisionally accepted at this point. All submissions are considered and receive a final vote at the June meeting; those with a mixed rating in the second round get the most extensive discussion. There are no predetermined quotas for the number of sessions that can be accepted, and each submission is considered on its own merits and in accordance with the guidelines published on the ‘Types of Sessions’ webpage. As is indicated there, the Program Committee takes the diversity of each unit’s speakers into consideration.
Individual submissions: The individual paper and lightning talk abstracts are reviewed in three phases. Before the June meeting of the Program Committee all paper abstracts are read and rated (‘reject’ or ‘move to second round’) by two readers chosen by the Program Committee chair from the Program Committee and the six Directors-at-Large on the SCS Board of Directors; lightning talk abstracts are read by two members of the Program Committee. Every abstract is read by at least one member of the Program Committee, i.e., by a committee member elected specifically for that function (the remit of the Directors-at-Large is broader). The abstracts that receive at least one ‘move to second round’ vote are read and rated by all seven Program Committee members before the June meeting. Those that receive two ‘reject’ votes do not advance to the second round. All abstracts reviewed in the second round are considered and receive a final vote at the June meeting; those with a mixed rating (neither wholly positive nor wholly negative) get the most extensive discussion. Each abstract is discussed until a consensus is reached. There were no predetermined quotas for the number of papers that can be accepted, and each abstract is considered on its own merits and in accordance with the published guidelines.
Affiliated Group panels and organizer-refereed panels: These program units are entitled to a place on the Annual Meeting program by their charters. The Program Committee reviews the organizers’ reports to ensure that proper procedure was followed, especially the requirement for blind review, but does not vote on the panels’ contents.