Skip over navigation | Sla menu over

 The Preprints Selection Process

The ICOM-CC Preprints undergo a rigorous, two-phase selection process. The first phase consists of a call for abstracts, not to exceed 1000 words, outlining the proposed paper. Authors submit their abstracts to the relevant Working Group; Coordinators review and grade the abstracts, which are then forwarded to peer review. One Peer Reviewer, a subject specialist in that field, is assigned to review and grade the contributions for each Working Group. The identity of the Peer Reviewer is not disclosed to the Working Group Coordinator or to the authors. The grades of the Coordinator and Peer Reviewer are determined according to selection criteria (link); their grades carry equal weight and are averaged 1:1 to arrive at a final score.
A Selection Committee, composed of the Preprints Managing Editor and four current/former Directory Board members, reviews the final scores and comments, considers any discrepancies, and makes the selection of authors who will be invited to submit full papers, taking into account the number of abstracts submitted to each Working Group. Based on the conference format of five simultaneous Working Group sessions, it has been determined that 150 papers are the maximum number that can be presented at the Triennial Conference. The invitation to submit full papers is normally extended to approximately 180–200 authors, as experience has shown that not all will produce final papers or else the end result does not always meet the expectation set by the abstract. In addition, it cannot be stressed enough that at least one author of each selected paper must attend the Conference to present and discuss the work; otherwise the paper will not be published.
In the second phase, full papers undergo the same two-step review process as described above, with the Selection Committee making the final determination of accepted contributions. A call for posters goes out in tandem with the results of the first phase, and abstracts for posters are due at the same time as the final papers. For 2017, poster abstracts were not subject to peer review; instead, Working Group Coordinators were invited to select their five best poster abstracts. Poster numbers will vary according to the Conference venue.

Approximate schedule:

Conference year minus one
January: Call for abstracts of papers is issued
Mid-April: Deadline for abstracts of papers
July: Authors are notified of initial selection results
Mid-November: Deadline for full papers and poster abstracts

Conference year
April: Authors are notified of final selection of papers and posters
June: PDF proofs are sent to authors for review
Late July: Preprints go to press

Note that during both phases, in the period between the submission of papers and poster abstracts and notification to authors, Working Group Coordinators and Peer Reviewers each have approximately six weeks to review and grade submissions. Following the final selection of papers and posters in April of the conference year, a percentage are returned to authors for revision while copy editing and layout begins on the balance of the submissions. Dates of each phase are communicated to authors and Working Group Coordinators well in advance; deadlines must be respected in order to publish the proceedings in time for the conference.


Share this page