MICCAI 2019 Area Chairs Reviewer assignment – Phase 1 To be completed by ***Monday, April 29 06:00 PST***
Dear Area Chairs,
We are now moving into the first phase of the review process as described in https://www.miccai2019.org/information/information-review_process/.
After a careful paper triage (removing incomplete or wrongly formatted / over-length papers), we have identified 1735 full paper submissions suitable for double-blind peer-review. This is a 63% increase compared to last year, and a very encouraging indicator of the growth and success of MICCAI!
Thanks also to your help, we have successfully recruited more than 1000 expert reviewers, who will be asked to review around 6 papers each. Each paper will be reviewed by 3 reviewers.
We have automatically allocated your set of papers to look after in this double-blind peer-review process. This was done using automated conflict checking using CMT conflict domains, and automated paper matching using the Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS) and your subject areas. Thank you very much for your patience and assistance in this process!
Your next steps are as follows – you have been assigned 24-26 papers, and we ask you to suggest at least 10 potential reviewers to each of the papers assigned to you. Please read carefully and let us know if there are any questions:
1. Log in to CMT (https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/MICCAI2019) using your user ID (the email address with “reviewer status” and selecting your role as “Meta-Reviewer“, to check the papers allocated to you. (See Screenshot #1 below).
2. You can view the titles, abstracts, download individual papers or, under “Actions“, select “Download files” to download all papers including supplemental materials as a single archive.
Please note there may be a small number of papers in your batch that may not be a perfect match, but the allocation has been optimised under the constraints of TPMS scores, subject areas, conflicts, overall numbers of papers and PC members.
Screen-shot #1
3. Ignore the Review, Meta-reviewers, Meta-review, Discussion & Feedback columns for now. You can click on the Paper ID to get a summary of the paper, or download from the link in the Title column.
4. For each paper, select on the far right the “more” -> “Edit suggestions” menu to see the list of potential reviewers for the paper.
The list of reviewers is sorted in alphabetical order by default. You can sort the list of reviewers according to their Relevance or their TPMS score. Relevance is determined by the overlaps of the subject areas between the paper and the reviewer. This number ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 being least relevant and 1 being most relevant. TPMS rank is determined by overlap of the keyword profiles extracted from the paper and the reviewer’s previous publications, with 1 being the highest rank (best match) and 1735 being the worst.
To sort all reviewers by Relevance, click on “Relevance” two times to sort in decreasing order (most to least relevant). To sort all reviewers by TPMS rank, click on “TPMS rank” once to sort in an increasing order (best match (1) to least (1735)).
Note that the results from the two sorting criteria may not always agree.
We suggest that you place more emphasis on the TPMS ranking, noting however that not all reviewers have completed their TPMS profiles (<5% still missing). You can also click on “View” in the External Profile Column to view the Google Scholar profile of the reviewer (if they have uploaded it), or Google the reviewer to check the publication profile.
(Since these are the reviewers that you will potentially manage, it is important that you select the most appropriate reviewers for each paper. )
5. Please at least read the abstract of the paper to help you determine the best fit with reviewers, and suggest *at least* 10 potential reviewers for each paper, in a ranked order. Use the “Add” link on the right hand column to add the reviewer to your list. These will appear in a list at the top of your page according to the order of your selection. You can reorder your selected list by using the arrow buttons in the right hand column (Screen-shot #3 below). This final list should reflect how you rank each reviewer (most highly recommended reviewer to least). You can also search for reviewers by name (=”name“). (Screenshots #2 and #3 below).
Screen-shot #2
Screen-shot #3
6. When you have completed the selection above, you can return to the main “Meta-reviewer” page by clicking on the “Back to Meta-Reviewer Console” button at the bottom of the page. At this point you will see your list of suggestions in the “Suggestions” column. (See Screenshot #4 below)
7. Repeat this process for each of the papers you have been assigned.
8. We ask you to complete the above steps by ***Monday, April 29 06:00 PST***, so that we can begin Reviewer assignment – Phase 2, on Monday morning. This involves a reviewer matching process using your suggestions. The review period is scheduled to start early May.
Please let us know if anything of the above is not clear to you, and if there is anything we can do to help and assist you in this process.
With best wishes,
MICCAI 2019 Program Executive
