SATNAC 2010 Review Process
The Review Process was undertaken by at least three experienced and well respected individuals. In the blind peer-review process papers were scrutinised by a panel of South African reviewers, consisting of mainly respected academics as well as four International experts. The reviewers were asked to provide specific feedback, both positive and negative, to the authors. This was the only information from the review given to authors; all other information was kept confidential.
A formal 'Call for Papers' was issued on 16 February 2010, inviting anyone interested in making a contribution towards the conference by submitting a paper by 3 May 2010, in categories as specified by the Organizing Committee. Authors uploaded their papers onto a database and papers were assigned to the review panel in the field to judge on the possible acceptability of the submission based upon the scope and depth of the subject matter to the conference as a whole with the request that the papers should be reviewed and judged according to a number of criteria.
Reviewers were asked to use a 5 point scale to rate the following criteria:
- Technical Quality
- Presentation style
Reviewers were also asked to give an Overall Rating and had to qualify their rating by providing a rationale for the Overall Rating given. This was followed by the Reviewer Comments that would assist the authors in improving and correcting their papers. Reviewers were asked to be as comprehensive as possible in this section.
The Reviewers submitted their scoring and comments onto the database and the Technical Programme Committee drew reports when required and aggregated the individual scores. Only papers with a combined value above a certain threshold were accepted. Every paper was reviewed a minimum three times and the average number of reviews per submission was 4.2 times. Prior to the review process every paper was submitted to an online plagiarism database and 4 submissions failed and were thus not considered for the conference.
The reviewers' comments were forwarded to the
author/s with the request to submit a final revised version of the paper by
The review process used is based on what is considered the international de facto standard for blind paper reviews.
Two page Work-in-Progress papers were also
invited but were not reviewed as rigorously and several were accepted for oral
presentations and some for poster session presentations, although the poster
session papers do not form part of the official conference proceedings.
Technical Programme Committee