2 Sequential review processes

[lrizquierdo]

Hi there!

I was wondering whether someone has experience in setting up a conference with two sequential review processes and is so kind to give me some advice. To be clear, I need to set up a conference where:

1. There is a first-stage review process where authors have to submit two EXTENDED ABSTRACTS (which must be files, i.e. not only text):

• 1a. one for the blind review process (i.e. without author / project names, affiliations...) and
• 1b. another one for us (organisers) to be published later (i.e. with author names…)

2. After the first-stage review process has concluded (i.e. after a couple of months), there is a subsequent second-stage review process where authors have to submit two FULL PAPERS:

• 2a. one for a second blind review process (i.e. without author / project names, affiliations...) and
• 2b. another one for us (organisers) to be published later (i.e. with author names…)

In brief, authors will have to submit 2 + 2 files (in two stages), and only one of the files at each stage must be accessible to the reviewers.

So far I was thinking of asking authors to submit the files without names as the main submission file and the files with personal information as supplementary files which would not be sent to the reviewers. I’m still not very clear about how to do the two sequential review processes though. Should I create two conference instances?

Any thoughts will be really appreciated. Also, if anyone has seen a conference where they do something similar, I would very much appreciate a link to it.

Thank you very much indeed,
Luis

[asmecher]

Hi Luis,

There are two points at which your description diverges from what OCS 2.0 supports:

• Requirement for extended abstracts to be submitted as files. OCS 2.0 currently accepts abstracts using a text field (which can support limited HTML code).
• OCS 2.0 puts the onus of removing identifying information on the Director, not the Author. In our experience, authors cannot be relied upon to consistently remove identifying information. (If the investment of time required is too onerous, I do recall that there were third-party products to strip metadata from documents; perhaps one of these would be helpful.)

Other than that, a two-step review process is supported as you describe.

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team