REVIEWING PROCEDURES FOR AHM 2006

Each paper and poster is allocated a primary reviewer and a secondary reviewer in the Programme Committee (PC). The primary reviewer has to provide TWO reviews. The secondary reviewer has to provide ONE review. The reviews can be provided by people other than the PC members, but a primary reviewer of a paper or poster is strongly encouraged to read the submission and provide one review by himself or herself. The primary reviewer of a paper or poster is expected to read the submission, read all the reviews, and provide additional comments to the PC co-chairs before 13 May 2005 if the reviews are widely diverging.

When you login, the AHM 2006 reviewing page will show the submissions for which you are responsible as either primary and secondary reviewer. The page will also allow the papers to be downloaded, and reviews to be input via a web-based form. It is the responsibility of the PC member to ensure that all of the reviews are completed and input before the deadline of 9th June.

The PC meeting will be held on the 13 June 2006 at Newcastle University. The final selection of papers and posters will be made at this meeting, further details of which will be sent out later.

Conflicts of interest.

Any PC member that thinks they have a conflict of interest should inform Paul Watson (Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk) as soon as possible. For example:

The schedule for reviewing is as follows:

Further information

There were a total of 140 submissions divided as follows:

Papers may be accepted for oral presentation, for presentation as a poster, or rejected (84 papers were presented in 2005, and there is also space for about 65 posters). However, the authors of some papers have requested that they be considered as papers only, in which case they can only be accepted or rejected. Posters may be accepted or rejected.

The purpose of reviewing is to make these selections and provide feedback to the authors.