2AC assigment

As Primary AC, you will flag the papers that are neither clear accepts, nor clear rejects, which would benefit from additional input to resolve different views. In other words, you flag the papers that are considered borderline.

Because this step is newly introduced, we have to manage with a conference system that was not designed for this workflow. We found a process that should work, and request that you follow this procedure:

1. Go to menu item Reviews / My Papers.

   (Instead, you can select the Reviews menu and click on the link “Reviews on papers assigned to me”.)

2. Inspect the status of the first tier reviews by clicking on the loupe / magnifying glass icon (on each row).

   (You can use the Reviews / Missing Reviews menu to send additional reminders to the first tier reviewers - we will however do that as well.)

3. For every paper in the Table shown, add the following boilerplate metareview as follows:

   3.1. Click on the plus icon in the column named metareview - please ignore column “add new review”.

   3.2. In the metareview form that opens, type the following boilerplate text:

   In the box labeled Metareview:

   Either:

     "2AC REVIEW NECESSARY" 
   

   Or:

     "1AC METAREVIEW ONLY"
   

   In the box labeled Confidential part:

     "1AC ${YOUR NAME}"
   

4. After completing these steps, we appreciate an email to sigir2017pcchairs@nii.ac.jp with just the IDs of the submissions you flagged for 2AC review.

The boilerplate text helps us decide which papers need an additional reviewer to be assigned (the 2AC). Entering your name in the confidential part of the review will help us keep track of who is 1AC and who is 2AC on a paper. When the discussion phase has ended, you will replace the boilerplate metareview by the real metareview. Instructions for the discussion phase follow shortly.

Additional information

First tier reviewers received the following guideline on How to review.