All papers accepted for RADAR 2003 and included in the proceedings (including invited papers) were anonymously peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers selected from the Technical Program Committee. The review was conducted on the basis of full papers, and not abstracts alone, as this is a requirement of the Australian University system for papers to be "counted" as part of an individual's record of publication. In the case of invited papers, one of the reviewers was the session organiser (unless he was also an author). Comments on invited papers were also given to the session organiser (without identifying the reviewer) so that they could check to see if the comments were taken into account. 

Two comments come from the experience of the reviewing process. 

• The requirement to submit full papers by 31 January, seven months in advance of the conference, posed a difficulty for some authors who are more familiar with the process of submitting only an abstract for review. As noted above, the full-paper review process derives from an academic reporting requirement in Australia (and presumably in a number of other countries) and the lead time was on the low side of the recommended IEEE lead-time of "10-6 months"¹ so the Committee did not feel it was imposing an unreasonable burden on prospective authors. 

• By the seven-month paper submission cut-off only slightly more than 50% of the final total of paper submission had been received. Most remaining papers came in over the next month and were accepted for review. However, the Technical Program Committee was rigorous in honouring its obligation to report to authors as to the acceptance status of papers by the date advertised in pre-conference publicity. A number of late papers and offers of papers had to be rejected.

¹ IEEE Meetings Organisation Manual

Secretariat

Plevin and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 54 BURNSIDE 5066 South Australia
Tel +61 8 8379 8222 Fax +61 8 8379 8177 events@plevin.com.au

Last updated 01/01/2004