Reviewers and Curators Guidelines
The Coordinating Committee will contact, on the appropriate date, each member of the International Board, to begin the review of the submitted articles.
If the reviewer finds some conflict of interest or problem during the revision process he should contact, as soon as possible, the Coordinating Committee. The Coordinating Committee can extend the deadline or unassign the review, as appropriate.
Despite the intentions of the blind review process, the identity of the author can sometimes be apparent. The reviewer should not discuss the manuscript with its authors during the review process, or at any time prior to actual publication. Articles assigned to reviewers are privileged documents and should therefore be protected from any abuse. Similarly, the reviewer can’t quote an article or reference to the works before the article’s publication. The information in the article cannot be used by the reviewer to advance his own research.
The Coordinating Committee will provide for more information to reviewers and curators in due time.
While reviewing the articles that have been assigned the reviewer should consider the following aspects:
- Article Content
- Relevance: for example, is it within the overall theme of the Festival?;
- Interest to the scientific community: for example, is an important contribution or useful within the fields of art, technology or social sciences;
- Theoretical basis according to relevant literature;
- Solidity of analysis;
- Soundness of methodology, argumentation and conclusions;
- Organisation and consistency;
- Style (this category is not usually cause for rejection);
- Appropriate academic tone, appropriate literature citations and references;
- Adequacy of the title and summary;
- Adequacy of the figures and pictures;
If the reviewer finds an article difficult to read due to its language it is not required, nor is it expected, that the reviewer make corrections of any type about style, syntax or grammar. However we do expect reviewers to comment on the appropriate field in EasyChair, if the APA norm is not followed throughout the article.
The review report, including all criticisms, suggested changes and recommendations made by the reviewer, will be sent to the author (along with the final decision of the Coordinating Committee on the publication or rejection of the article). Is expected to adopt a critical but constructive and impartial tone in relation to the article under review, with the aim of promoting an effective academic communication with the author.
We appreciate constructive criticism and encouragement as well as the suggestion of possible improvements to the articles, avoiding dogmatic statements. The reviewer will be asked to substantiate all their criticisms and recommendations as much as possible. It is not required nor is it expected of the reviewer the corrections of any shortcomings of style, syntax or grammar.
The review report must explicitly recommend one of the following:
- Approved (without revisions)
- Approved (with minor revisions)
- Approved (with major revisions)
There may be several reasons to recommend the definitive rejection of an article, for example a total lack of originality/relevance or weak organisation of content. If the reviewer considers that the article can be reviewed by the author and be submitted for approval within 30 days, then he should recommend Approved (with major revisions) or Approved (with minor revisions). Under this category, the items are returned to the authors with a request for review, prior to the publishing.
Reviewers will receive further detailed information about submitting their reviews through EasyChair Conference System.
While analyzing the art projects that have been assigned the curator, he/she should consider the following aspects:
- Does the artwork fit within the framework of the PSF2016’s theme: Interference+Intermittence?
- Does the artwork explore new aesthetic, conceptual or technological possibilities on the use of screens?
- Does the artwork propose new directions in art, new media, technology or social and cultural fields?
- Does this artwork reveal experimentation and originality?