SATNAC 2012 Review Process

A formal ‘Call for Papers’ was issued, inviting anyone interested to submit a paper within categories specified by the Organizing Committee. Authors uploaded their papers via web interface onto a database. Papers were assigned to the review panel in the field to judge on the possible acceptance of the submission, based on the scope and depth of the subject matter.


The review process is based on the international de facto standard for blind paper reviews. The review process was undertaken by at least three experienced and well respected individuals. In the blind peer-review process, papers were scrutinized by a panel of South African reviewers, consisting of mainly respected academics, as well as several international experts. The reviewers were asked to provide specific feedback, both positive and negative. This was the only information from the review process disclosed to the authors; all other information was kept confidential.


Reviewers used a 4 point scale to rate the following criteria:

·         Originality

·         References

·         Technical Quality

·         Presentation Style


Reviewers gave an overall rating. This was followed by the reviewer comments, which assists the authors in improving and correcting their papers. Reviewers were asked to be as comprehensive as possible.


The reviewers submitted their scoring and comments via web interface onto the database. The Technical Programme Committee drew reports and aggregated the individual scores. The papers were ranked on their average weighted score. The programme dictated the number of papers that could be accepted. Papers were submitted to an online plagiarism database, before being accepted.


The reviewers’ comments were forwarded to the author’s, with a request to submit a final revised version. Only those papers of high enough quality as recommended by the respective reviewers are included in the SATNAC 2012 Proceedings as Full Reviewed Papers.


Two page Work-In-Progress papers were also invited but were not reviewed as rigorously. Several were accepted for oral presentations, while others for poster presentations. The poster session papers do not form part of the official conference proceedings.



Dr Stefan Scriba


Technical Programme Committee