We will use HotCRP for submissions, and create accounts for each of you. You may have to check your spam for these invitations, and set up your account. This must be done before we open the site up for submissions, because it is the only way in which we will be able to identify conflicts.
Papers and posters will be due the same day (see timeline below). There will be no room for rejected papers to be repurposed as posters, unlike in prior years. Your reviewing load will include up to five papers and up to three posters.
Every paper will be assigned to five reviewers (two Core PC members and three Extended PC members) by the Program Chairs (Neha & Rajesh). If you feel that the papers assigned to you are ill-chosen, please inform us ASAP so we can swap review assignments. Be prepared, however, for having to review some papers outside of your comfort zone. In case of conflict (see FAQ for the definition of a conflict) that was undetected at submission, we will definitely swap papers. If a paper has not been anonymized, let us know right away, as this may qualify it for a desk-reject.
Every paper will have one meta-reviewer from the Core PC (CPC). If that is you, your responsibility will be to extract fitting, timely, and complete reviews from the other reviewers. You will need to summarize these reviews in your words, and assign an overall score. Remember that you can have a discussion with the other reviewers if there is disagreement, but they are entitled to their personal views, and your meta-review must reflect all voices (minus exceptions). It will also be your job to ensure that reviews are respectful, even if you recommend rejection. As the code of conduct says, be excellent to each other, particularly in the double-blind review process. And please do not make it hard for us to be excellent to you ;).
Every paper will also have one outside reviewer from the CPC. If that is you, you will be responsible for checking that the contributions of the paper seem accessible, and can be reasonably well understood by a wider audience. This does not mean reviewing for rigor or correctness, but for ensuring that the paper is written in a way that the gist may be gleaned by ICTD researchers not operating in that particular domain. For example, if you are a data scientist working in the education sector, you should still be able to recommend acceptance for a paper that is qualitative and located in the health domain. We repeat, your job is not to assess the quality of research but the quality of writing and how accessible it is.
Apart from these two CPC members, the other three reviewers will be from the Extended PC (EPC). Many EPC members are not as intimately familiar with ICTD as the CPC members are and some of them may be new to paper-reviewing entirely. On the other hand, there are others who have been engaged with ICTD since its inception, but chose to sign up for a lighter load. We request you all to keep this range in mind and be respectful of others' views and expertise.
As an EPC member, you will be responsible for doing a full review of the paper. Please check that the paper
On our part, we will try to ensure that none of you are assigned more than the workload you signed up for. If the number of submissions exceeds our estimates, we will do our best to recruit more CPC members. On your part, do remember that the reviewing will take place on a tight timeline (below), and we will send you regular reminders to guide you along. We ask that you please do your bit to help move things along smoothly. We may give up on some of you entirely if you turn non-responsive, after we have chased you with enough email reminders. And some of you might be asked to step in at the last minute to make up for the former. Please do try to not let this happen though. Think about each other, and karma :). Please be good ICTD citizens.
July 1, 2018: Site open for submissions
July 22, 2018: Papers and posters are submitted
July 28, 2018: Papers are assigned to CPC members (for meta or outside review) and EPC members (for review)
August 18, 2018: EPC members submit their reviews
August 25, 2018: CPC members complete discussion (if necessary) and their reviews
August 27, 2018: PC meeting with program chairs and CPC (tentative)
September 7, 2018: Notifications sent
Sarah Revi Sterling