Review Guidelines and Process

The role of reviewers is to ensure the quality of the content associated with JuliaCon including proceedings and extended abstracts.

Conflict of interest

In any case of conflict of interest, the reviewer commits to withdraw from a review and signal it to the organizers to find a replacement quickly. See the PNAS guidelines for a definition and examples. Conflicts of interest include any work or authors with which the reviewer has “any association that poses or could be perceived as a financial or intellectual conflict of interest” (PNAS guidelines above).

Code of Conduct

The reviewer commits to reading and respecting the conference Code of Conduct in the assessment and all communications during the review process.

If some content submitted to the Conference does not comply with the Code of Conduct, the reviewer should refer it to the organizing committee.

Submitted documents

Submitted work comes in two types: extended abstracts and full papers. See the author guide for more information on both.

Review comments

Each review should include a general recommendation from the following list:

In any case other than an acceptation as-is, the reviewer should provide the author with a list of comments they can use to improve their document for the next round, citing the corresponding parts of the documents, they should in all comments be as specific as possible.

Review process

The review process is similar to the Journal of Open-Source Software and takes place in a dedicated GitHub issue. A reviewer checklist is generated for each reviewer of the paper. A box should be checked only once the reviewer considers that the criterion is met by the work presented.

Note: the checklist is meant as a general guide for reviewers and does not capture subject-specific best practices or notation consistency. The reviewer should feel free to indicate what they consider should be edited in the submitted work.