The role of the reviewer is to assist the Program Committee (PC) in assessing the quality of proposals submitted. Reviews do not wholly determine which proposals will be accepted or rejected. They provide expert information that the PC uses in making its decisions. Reviewers also provide helpful, constructive feedback to authors, which can strengthen the quality and intellectual rigor of the conference.
A good review will suggest concrete ways in which the proposal may be strengthened. This feedback is important whether you are recommending that the submission be rejected or accepted. If the former, it will enable the author to submit a stronger proposal next year (and may encourage and benefit a new member or a young scholar); if the latter, it will result in a stronger paper being presented. In either case, constructive criticism projects collegiality and an interest in others’ work.
Whatever you may think privately of the proposal or project, and whatever you may know (or think you know) about the author, it is essential that you be uncompromisingly professional and courteous in reviewing all submissions. Rudeness of any sort is destructive to the morale of the community and is absolutely unacceptable in a review. Comments which are purely negative should be addressed solely to the program committee.
Inheriting the way in the last conference, DH2022 will use the open peer review process, which requires submitter and reviewer identities to be disclosed to one another. Reviews themselves will remain confidential to the submitter, reviewers, and the members of the Program Committee. We ask discretion on the part of all involved to ensure that reviewing meets the conference code of conduct.
Reviewers will be able to read comments by other reviewers who have been assigned to assess the same submission. These peer reviews will only be visible after you have submitted your own review. Reviewers are expected to assess each contribution independently, on its own merits, and are asked not to address other reviewers’ comments directly.
Submitters will have the opportunity to provide a written response to reviewer concerns regarding their submission. Reviewers are expected to engage with this additional material following the first round of review and make any changes to their scoring as a result in a timely manner. Additional comments will be welcomed at this time regarding any changes the reviewer might wish to make.
Please note that we encourage all reviewers to be aware of both explicit and implicit bias in the review process. Biases are developed through our background, cultural environment and personal experiences. Importantly, the program committee for DH2022 reminds all reviewers that explicit or implicit bias can negatively shape the reviewing process, the conference program, and the conference as a whole. We reserve the right to reassign a review should we feel that it has been shaped by explicit or implicit bias.
Submissions will be evaluated based on:
Reviewing Submissions by Type
Please review the submission types before completing your reviews. Reviewers are welcome to suggest alternative presentation formats (for instance, considering long paper proposals for short paper presentations, etc).
Ten Tips for Conference Reviewing
Be aware of the Review Criteria