1.0 Introduction

These instructions are intended to guide Reviewers through the paper review and sub committee monitoring processes for EuMW2006. Please print out these instructions and read them very carefully!

This year all 4 conferences within the European Microwave week will use the same online paper review system, and because of circumstances, it will be different to the one used in previous years. These instructions are intended to help with the transition and walk you through, step by step, the procedure to carry out all the required tasks in the review process.

NOTE: In order to view the papers assigned to your subcommittee for review, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader. We strongly recommend Acrobat Reader 7.0. You may also need to install the Adobe Asian Font Packs to read some documents. If you encounter problems with reading or printing a summary (i.e. the text and/or equations are unreadable), the first thing you will be asked when you request support is if you have Acrobat Reader 7.0 and the Asian Font Packs installed. Therefore, in preparation for the review process we request that you install or upgrade to Acrobat Reader 7.0. This software is available for free at the Adobe website:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2_allversions.html

The Asian Font Packs are available at: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrrasianfontpack.html

CAUTION: Supported Web browsers include Netscape 4.0 (or newer including Mozilla and Firefox), Internet Explorer 5.0 (or newer), or equivalent. We have had reports that the AOL browser has problems.

Please note that this system is based on the well established system employed by MTT for the IMS. Those familiar with that process will find this very similar, but there are adaptations to maintain familiarity with the previous EuMW system. For those only familiar with the previous EuMW system, as much common ground has been maintained as possible, within the constraints of having to adopt this new process.

Note also that the SC chair has to make the final accept/reject decision for all papers assigned to the SC at the TPC meeting on 8 April 2006. It is therefore recommended that the chairs closely monitor progress during the review period.

The whole review process is conducted online, hosted on an MTT web server and follows the basic outline shown above. Please note it is important to keep within the dates shown and your full cooperation in this matter is very much appreciated.

The review process follows broadly similar lines to previous years, with the formal adoption of named Sub Committee (SC) chairs and involving them earlier in the review. The process flow is:

Submission Deadline
The submission deadline on the call for papers is Feb 17 2006. When Authors submit their papers they also specify which topics on the call for papers they regard their paper as addressing.

Sort/Reassign
After that, using the Author's topic selection, the individual Sub Committee chairs agree whether or not the paper is in the most appropriate Sub Committee. This is a new step in the process, but important so that every paper gets assigned to the most appropriate set of reviewers. Note also that this process now applies over all 4 conferences so that in some rare but useful cases papers can be swapped between conferences as well as topic areas. Also, in the unlikely case of a paper not being accepted by any Sub Committee, then the Author's first choice must be acknowledged and that committee reviews the paper.

Review/Rank
This part of the process is very similar to the previous years. Papers are allocated to the reviewers and they log on and score the papers. This year there are some consolidated evaluation criteria designed to assist the TPC meeting and these will be described later. Also note that all SC Chairs are also Reviewers for the Topics of their Sub Committee.

TPC Meeting
The TPC meeting will function as previously with the main difference being that this new system supports additional aspects of the paper review process. There will be some further instructions later as an introduction, as well as an on-line demonstration prior to the TPC meeting to provide further guidance.

Final Papers
The same system is used to track and collect the accepted final papers.

2.0 Reviewer Login Procedure

All interaction with the system is performed through your web browser. You will receive an email with your unique login id and password. The review site is accessible using your web browser by going to the EuMW2006 reviewer web site and entering your login information.

Step 1. Access the summary review web site: http://www.mtt-tpms.org/symposia_v4/EuMW2006/reviewerlogin.html

You should now be at the "Login" screen.

Step 2. Type in your username and password, then press the "Continue" button to reach the main page of the reviewer web site. From the main page, use the drop down list box to select the task you wish to execute. Depending on where you are in the review process, the available tasks will be different.

CAUTION: Leading and trailing spaces in your username or password will cause your login to fail. If you use the clipboard to copy and paste your login data, make sure you have not inadvertently included spaces or other invisible characters.

3.0 Changing your password or contact information

You can change your personal information (password, email, telephone, and name) at any time.

Step 1. After logging in to the system, select the "Change Password and/or contact information" task from the drop down list box. Your current information on file will be displayed.

Step 2. Enter your updated password and/or contact information, then press the "Update my account" button to save the new information.

NOTE: A summary of your current contact information is always displayed at the bottom of the page whenever you are logged in to the system.

4.0 Reviewing and Scoring Papers

The Reviewer's web review phase starts on Feb 28 and ends on April 2. During this phase all Reviewers can login, view and/or download papers assigned to their SC, and enter scores and comments. Ranking of papers will be based upon a numeric score that is derived from ratings on four criteria; Originality, Technical/Scientific Value, Clarity and Relevance. Please refer to the EuMW2006 Rating Guide at the end of this document for the definition of the rating categories and their numeric range. The review process need not be completed during a single session. Reviewers can save their work and login again later at their own pace. Once the reviewer has finalized the score and comments for a paper, the reviewer must perform a save with the "final" checkbox selected, after which no further changes are possible. When all papers have been assigned their "final" scores, the review process is complete.

Step 1. After logging in to the system, select the "Review papers in the ... " task in the drop down list box at the top of the page. Then press "Perform the selected task" button to see all papers ready for review.

Step 2. View and/or download the pdf files for each paper submitted to your subcommittee. You have two options:

1. Click on the paper number to open a new window with the pdf file displayed online. Afterwards, you can also save the file to your hard drive using the Adobe Acrobat Save command, or use the Adobe Acrobat Print command to create a hard copy of the paper.

2. Click on the hyperlink "click here" to download a zip file containing the papers you need to review. This is a convenient way to bulk download many papers for review offline. You will need a zip file utility such as WinZip to recover the individual pdf files from this file.

CAUTION: Late transfers and updated pdf's that fix identified problems (e.g. pdf's with embedded Asian fonts) may not be included in the zip file. If you experience problems viewing a pdf or are missing a late transfer paper, please try option 1 before asking for help.

Step 3. Displayed for every paper in your subcommittee, will be a review screen similar to that shown below. After downloading and reviewing the paper, fill in the online form using the review criteria given at the end of these instructions.

The form captures all the information used previously in EuMW reviews, just in a slightly different format. The top of the box summarises the Author submitted information with the paper number being a link to the paper itself.

The paper scoring guide included at the end of this document has a summary of the criteria on this form.

To abstain from scoring a particular paper, check the Abstain box. Any scores entered will be disregarded when you are abstaining. Authors of papers and reviewers with any conflict of interest with the paper must abstain.

Please note that entering "0" will be counted as a score

Enter your numeric scores (0 poor, 10 best) in the four categories listed, this has been expanded from the 0 to 5 options last year to provide more scope for marking between the categories.

There are also several drop down selection boxes that provide recommendations from each reviewer for the TPC. There are only minor changes from the information requested in previous years. From recommendations last year, to aid clarity, the "Summary Type" has been changed to "Industrial" or "Academic" rather than "Applications" or "Academic". Also, in place of the previous Global Score, there will be a selection box to recommend whether the paper should be "Accepted", "Accepted if room" or "Rejected". ( essentially the +1, 0 or -1 rating used before).

Prize eligibility can be nominated in the drop down No/Yes options; to give the clearest possible direction to the TPC, please make a selection No or Yes and not leave the default "?". Only those eligible for the Young Engineer Prize should be considered for that award, for all others please select No.

Reviewers are required to write comments to their SC Chair. These "private" comments will not be made available to the authors and are intended to facilitate the decision at the TPC meeting whether to accept or reject a paper. In addition to comments to the TPC, reviewers may also send separate comments to the authors. These comments will be reviewed by each SC chair and passed along to the corresponding author at the SC Chair's discretion. Please keep the comments informative and objective, as they will carry great weight with the authors.

If you wish to logoff at any time, make sure to press the "Save the reviews entered below" button to record your work. When you log back in to the system, you can pick up your reviews where you left off.

Step 4. When you are satisfied with your scoring and comments for a paper , check its "Final" box to make the score permanent, then press the "Save the reviews entered below" button. The current state of all your reviews will be displayed (see below). Reviews that are "Final" will display FINAL in red. These reviews can no longer be altered. When all your papers have the FINAL status, the review process is complete.

The TPC Committee will meet Saturday April 8 to finalize the disposition of papers, and to build the sessions for each subcommittee. At the meeting, aggregate scores for each paper will be available to help with your subcommittee's decision to accept or reject a paper. By the end of the day, the disposition of all papers in your subcommittee will need to be completed (either accepted or rejected), and all accepted papers assigned to your subcommittee need to be placed in your assigned session(s).

The screen capture below shows an example; all the data are zero because no reviews have yet been done. For any one paper, the table shows the numeric value of all the various reviewer inputs. There are numbers for columns like "Nomination for Young Engineers Prize: no" showing how many reviewers have indicated this selection.

This table provides the TPC meeting with a comprehensive, compact one line summary for each paper to facilitate the final review decision process.

5.0 Unlocking Your "Final" Review Scores

Only a Sub Committee Chair can unlock a paper's review score. If you wish to unlock a review score that you have previously marked as "Final," you will need to contact your Sub Committee Chair. Detailed instructions for unlocking review scores are provided in the Subcommittee Chair Instructions manual for the EuMW2006 Review Process.

All conferences during European Microwave Week evaluate submissions on the following four criteria of equal weight. The scores can be any integer on a scale from 0 and 10 corresponding to:

10: excellent
8: good
6: fair
4: moderately poor
2: poor
0: unacceptable

A separate check box is provided for an abstention and in that case any scores are ignored.

Originality

Does the work present a new idea or development of technical or scientific interest to the microwave community which has not been published previously (scientific paper)? Does the work describe a new concept in the industrial application of components, sub-assemblies or subsystems, which is useful to support future microwave and millimetre-wave developments (application-oriented paper)?

Technical / Scientific Value

Is the work of technical or scientific interest? For example, does it provide a better understanding of physical phenomena? Does the work have significant application? Does the work present an important step in the process of going from an idea or concept into an industrial product?

Clarity

Is the summary within the 3 page limit and well presented? Does it clearly state what results have been obtained and what is original?

Relevance

Is the subject of interest to attendees to European Microwave Week? Rank the level of interest in this subject material and topic area.

In scoring the paper, the sum of these 4 categories will be used from each reviewer to compute a mean and standard deviation for all the reviewers.

In addition, reviewers will be asked for other feedback that is not part of the score, but can be used by the TPC to decide on the final disposition of a paper. Each reviewer is to recommend, via a drop down selection, their "Global" disposition of the paper in terms of:

Accept
Accept if room
Reject

and to recommend whether the paper should be a podium presentation or in the poster session.

For statistical purposes, the paper type should be evaluated in terms of:

"Industrial" where the primary or majority of authors are from industry or
"Academic" where the primary or majority of authors are from academia.

The reviewers are asked to nominate papers for the two conference prizes; there are two drop down no/yes selections for nominations:

the Conference Prize for each of the 4 conferences that is open to all, and the Young Engineers prize that is only available to those who are eligible.

Please do not leave this as a "?"; making a definite selection is much clearer to the TPC.