IEEE Robotics and Automation Society IEEE

ICRA Conference Editorial Board

Charter of the RAS Conference Editorial Board

I. Scope of the CEB

The CEB is in charge of providing quality reviews and acceptance/rejection suggestions for papers submitted to IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA);

A goal of CEB will be to provide consistency over years for what concerns the minimum number of reviews, their constructive nature, their confidentiality and fairness.

II. Structure of the CEB

The CEB consists of an Editor-in-Chief (EiC), several Editors (Eds) and Associate Editors (AEs).The number of Editors and Associate Editors is decided on the basis of the number of submissions to the handled, considering a maximum of 15 papers assigned per AE per year.

Each AE is supervised by an Ed, to whom they report. The AEs are recruited by each Ed, and are selected on the basis of expertise and topics covered. In exceptional cases, an AE may report to more than one Ed.

Editors are supervised by the EiC.

III. Appointment of CEB members

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) is appointed by the President of IEEE RAS, upon recommendation by the Steering Committee for Technical Programs (SCTP) and endorsement by the Vice President for Conference Activities.

The Editors will be proposed by the EiC, in consultation with the Program Chair of the upcoming conference, and will be appointed by a committee of six, consisting of the Associate Vice President of Conference Activities for the SCTP, the Vice President for Publication Activities and the Vice President for Technical Activities or their delegated Associate Vice Presidents, the EIC of the Transactions on Robotics, the EIC of Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, and the EIC of the Robotics and Automation Magazine.

The Associate Editors will be appointed by the EiC, upon consultation with the Editors. Individual applications to the AE position will be considered. It will be required to submit a CV and evidence of the ability to review and overview referees.

The appointments above will be made according to the criteria of scientific and managerial abilities of individuals, taking into consideration also a balance in expertise and regional distribution.

The EiC and Eds of the CEB will serve a term of three years, renewable once. AEs serve yearly terms, renewable as needed based on need and good performance. Performance will be reviewed every year and terms may be shortened if performance is inadequate. The review for AEs will be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and Editors of the CEB. The review for the Editors will be performed by the EiC with the selction committee mentioned above. The SCTP will review the performance of the EIC.

IV. Operation of the CEB

The EiC and the Editors prepare and maintain a list of keywords adequately describing the technical scope of the Conference. The number and breadth of the keywords will be such that roughly an even number of submissions will be associated to each.

Based upon matching of keywords, and taking in consideration an even balance of the workload, submitted papers will be assigned by the EiC to the Eds.

Eds assign papers to AEs in their area, on the basis of keywords and load balancing.

AEs will solicit at least two external reviews per paper from experts of their choice. The AEs will inform reviewers of the requirements on timeliness, accuracy and constructiveness of reviews, and will supervise so that these are met by the reviews. AEs do not provide reviews for the papers themselves. Based on the reviews and on their own reading of the submitted paper, the AEs will make a recommendation about acceptance or rejection, accompanied by a report briefly summarizing the reviews and providing thorough motivations for the decision to the authors.

The summary rejection of a paper may be proposed by the AE assigned to that paper. The AE writes a review justifying the summary rejection, and transmits the summary rejection to the appropriate Editor. If the Editor approves the rejection, then the paper is summarily rejected without further review. If there is any disagreement or uncertainty, the paper is sent out for review.

The AE's recommendation will be overviewed by the supervising Eds, who will be responsible for checking that the quality standards of the review process (including number and depth of reviews, significance of AE's report) have been met. The Eds will issue a brief statement for each recommendation, whereby the correctness and completeness of the revieweing procedure is endorsed.

The EiC will supervise the whole process, collect data and statistics, and provide the conference's Program Committee (PC) with a comprehensive and organized set of data on submissions and their reviews. 7. The final decision on acceptance or rejection will be made by the ICRA conference's Program Committee (PC). The EiC will support the PC by providing information on the review process, technical support with data retrieval and presentation, and by participating to meetings of the PC.

The PC Chair will be in charge of interfacing withe the authors, sending them the decisions, and dealing with possible requests for clarification and complaints. The EiC will provide data and evidence to support the EiC in this phase.

V. Interaction with the Conference's Program Committee (PC)

A typical PC would be formed the order of 20 members, effectively acting as an executive body;

The PC sets the target acceptance rate and makes the final decision about acceptance or rejection for all of the papers which have not been summarily rejected.

The PC handles all aspects of organizing the conference, such as forming the technical program, assigning papers to sessions, special sessions, invited talks, videos, best papers, and 6 workshops and tutorials.

Prior to the PC meeting, the EIC of the CEB and the PC chair will go over the results of the review process, identifying particularly those papers which are borderline or otherwise require further PC scrutiny.

The PC chair distributes papers to PC members and possibly Technical Committee (TC) chairs for session formation and decisions about borderline papers.

The Program Chair will consider the opportunity to recruit members from the TC Chairs into the PC, upon consultation with the VP for Technical Activities.

The EIC of the CEB and (if possible) his/her assistant will attend the PC meeting.

VI. Costs

The RAS will pay for a part-time assistant to the Editor-in-Chief.

The RAS will pay for the EiC and his/her assistant or other CEB members to attend CEB and other society meetings as it may be required.

A conference will pay for the travel expenses of the Editor-in-Chief and his/her assistant to attend the PC meeting or other meetings as it may be required by the PC Chair.

Information for ICRA Editors

The CEB Editor Timeline for ICRA 2015

5 September 2014 Provide keyword preferences
22 September 2014 Deadline to recruit AEs
1 October 2014 Submission deadline
7 October 2014 Deadline for Editors to report COI to Editor
13 October 2014 All papers assigned to AEs (load balanced)
26 October 2014 Deadline for AEs to assign papers to reviewers
26 October 2014 Deadline for AEs to summarily reject papers
18 November 2014 Deadline for reviewers to submit reviews
5 December 2014 Deadline for AE final reports
14 December 2014 Deadline for Editor endorsements
23-24 January 2015 Senior PC Meeting (Editor attendance is not needed)
30 January 2015 Paper acceptance notification
27 February 2015 Final paper deadline

 

Summary Rejection

The Editor assigned to the paper makes the final determination as to whether the paper should be rejected without further review, or should go through the formal review process.

A paper should be rejected without review in any of the following cases:

  • It clearly makes no novel contribution to the state of the art.
  • It contains significant technical errors.
  • The paper has been published previously (i.e., the paper is identical to, or nearly identical to previously published work by the same authors).
  • The paper plagiarizes previously published research by other authors.

A paper should not be rejected without review merely because it makes only an incremental contribution, because it fails to report real-world experiments or because of poor writing quality. Further, a paper should not be summarily rejected because the AE feels its subject lies outside the scope of ICRA (this judgment is left for the Program Committee). If there is any doubt as to the decision, the paper should be sent for review. No more that 10-15% of submitted papers will be rejected without review.

Editors are requested to inform their AEs of the criteria and deadlines for summary rejections. Editors should notify the EiC of their proposed summary rejections with the associated rationale by the deadline for summary rejections.

Plagiarism

IEEE defines plagiarism as the reuse of someone else's prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source. It is important for all IEEE authors to recognize that plagiarism in any form, at any level, is unacceptable and is considered a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences (source: Section "8.2 Publication Guidelines" of the IEEE PSPB Operations Manual, "Guidelines for Adjudicating Different Levels of Plagiarism." )

Plagiarism cases involve serious accusations, which should be dealt with carefully. IEEE has clear policies to follow.

When a plagiarism case is detected by a CEB reviewer, he/she should inform the Associate Editor who assigned the review, the Editor, and the CEB Editor in Chief. While informing the editorial chain and ultimately the CEB Editor in Chief is mandatory, confidentiality in this process is strongly recommended by IEEE.

The iThenticate tool is used to detect overlaps between the submitted paper and other published documents. The outcome of this tool (available under "CrossCheck") should be used to evaluate whether possible plagiarism issues are present. One should ignore bibliographic overlaps, small matches, etc. If concerns are found, then the paper should be flagged as a possible case of plagiarism (following the link associated with the paper).

For submissions that have overlaps with previously published papers by the same authors (or with papers simultaneously submitted elsewhere), the IEEE rules are that the submission should cite the prior work, and clearly state how the submitted work is different from the previous publication or simultaneous submission. We don't have hard and fast rules for how much overlap with prior publications is too much. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% or more (of previously-published material) is a rough limit, although each submission has to be judged on its own merit. Note that overlaps with prior workshop papers (by the same authors) are usually not considered problematic, since IEEE supports the evolutionary publication paradigm of workshop papers being improved to conference papers, which are then improved to journal papers.

When a plagiarism case is detected, and the AE, Editor, and Editor-in-Chiefs concur on its relevance, the CEB stops the review process, and marks the paper for summary rejection. The Conference will send a summary rejection message with a stern comment, referring authors to IEEE policies, and warning of possibly impending further actions (in serious cases of plagiarism, IEEE Central will contact the authors directly). The EiC submits the case, with all evidence available, to an ad-hoc Committee for follow-up actions at IEEE level - as plagiarism cases usually involve more than one publication, and are of big concern to the Society.

Multiple submission (in which authors submit the same work to multiple venues, either simultaneously or serially) is related to, but not the same as, plagiarism. (Sometimes "multiple submission" is referred to as "self-plagiarism", but according to IEEE guidlines, this is a misnomer.) For submissions that have overlaps with previously published papers by the same authors (or with papers simultaneously submitted elsewhere), the IEEE rules are that the submission should cite the prior work, and clearly state how the submitted work is different from the previous publication or simultaneous submission. For serious multiple submission cases (where the AE, Editor, and Editor-in-chief agree the overlap is too much), the remedy is to reject their paper with a stern note in the Summary Report that the overlap of their paper with their own previously published papers is too much. Or, the authors might only be chastised for not citing their own work which the submission builds upon. These cases will not be forwarded to IEEE for followup.

Award candidates

Associate Editors are asked this year to identify which papers in their assignments they would consider as potential candidates for an award. To do so, they will use the "Confidential comments to the Program Committee" textbox in their AE Report form. It is not necessary to identify which award would a paper be a suitable candidate for.

Editors will consider the candidatures from the AEs, and will filter them in the light of their technical expertise, broader scope and editorial experience. Roughly speaking, ten candidates should be nominated in each profile.

Editors will communicate their candidates to the EiC, who will pass the info to the Senior Program Committee for the actual selection of finalists for each award.

Editor Endorsement of AE reports

The AE's recommendation and score, expressed in the Review Summary Report, will be overviewed by the supervising Editor, who will be responsible for checking that the quality standards of the review process (including number and depth of reviews, quality of AE's report, etc.) have been met. The Editor will update the score and report as needed, based on their calibration across multiple papers. Any confidential comments regarding the report/reviews should be noted in the confidential comments. The authors will see the finalized Review Summary Report prepared by the AE and Editor (but not the score); thus, the report should be carefully written to convey the main issues raised during the review process.

Conflicts of Interest

A CEB Editor is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a submitted paper if he or she is a (co-)author of the paper. Papers with Editor COIs will be reassigned to another Editor..

Information for ICRA Associate Editors

The Time Line for ICRA 2015

1 October 2014 Submission deadline
13 October 2014 All papers assigned to AEs
16 October 2014 Deadline for AEs to report COI to Editors
26 October 2014 Deadline for AEs to assign papers to reviewers
26 October 2014 Deadline for AEs to summarily reject papers
18 November 2014 Reviews Due
5 December 2014 Deadline for AE final reports
14 December 2014 Deadline for Editor endorsements
23-24 January 2015 Senior PC Meeting (AE/Editor attendance not needed)
30 January 2015 Paper acceptance notification
27 February 2015 Final paper deadline

Editorial Board Structure

The Conference Editorial Board (CEB) is organized into a three-layer hierarchy. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the entire Board. There are currently 15 Editors, each of whom handles a distinct set of submitted papers. The keywords for ICRA are partitioned into groups, each of which is the responsibility of exactly one Editor. When a paper is submitted to ICRA (via PaperPlaza), the author's choice of first keyword determines the Editor to which the paper is initially assigned. The paper will be assigned by the Editor to an AE based on the keyword choices of the paper and AEs. Occasionally papers are re-assigned to another Editor and/or AE to avoid conflict of interest and improve workload balance.

Getting Started

The review process for ICRA is managed using the PaperPlaza system. PaperPlaza provides a wide variety of tools to help AEs manage the review process. Reviewer assignments, review entry, AE reporting, and final decisions are all managed using PaperPlaza.

To access the system, go to the PaperPlaza page, click Start and then Log in. If you have forgotten your login information, you can retrieve it using the PIN management page.

It may be useful to spend a few minutes looking over the help pages, and in particular the Associate Editor's FAQ at the PaperPlaza site (click on Help).

Standard Review Process

The CEB has a strict review quality policy: every submitted paper must receive at least two substantial reviews. The Associate Editor should reject any sub-standard (too short or too shallow) review he/she receives. It is also the AE's responsibility to see that reviews are constructive and do not diminish the authors' efforts, even when they have to be very negative.

Selecting appropriate reviewers is critical in order to have a quality and timely review process. Candidate reviewers may include leading researchers in the topic area, colleagues who are familiar with the topic, authors of papers on the reference list, or authors of relevant papers that have been previously presented at ICRA or in other high-profile journals and conferences.

Avoid the assignment of reviewers from the same institution as the AE. Also, avoid asking other AEs to perform reviews. The AE list is linked from the CEB web page. While it is not explicitly forbidden to ask other AEs to perform reviews, it is likely that they will decline, since they will be quite busy managing their own paper load.

A good mix of senior and junior reviewers is desirable as they provide reviews from different perspectives and at different levels of detail. Use of student reviewers should be avoided, unless yo uare certain that they are experienced, senior-level graduate students whose review work is overseen by an advisor or mentor. A mix of reviewers from different geographical regions is also desirable. A key idea to secure reviewers is to align the interest of reviewers with ours: the paper is on a topic that they would really like to see or to say something about. Having reviewers who are interested in going over the manuscript alleviates the need of repeated sending of reminder messages, and avoids the need for AEs to find last-minute additional reviewers.

Note that it is not acceptable for you to be one of the reviewers for a paper that you are handling as AE. This provides insufficient independent opinions of the paper, and is not consistent with a quality review process. If you have difficulty getting reviewers to return their reviews on time, then you can ask another AE from your Editor's profile to help with reviews for your papers, while returning the favor to the other AEs who are helping you. Your Editor can help with contact information for other AEs who can help. However, this option is only to be used when other reviewers are not responsive to their review responsibilities.

Review requests are handled by the PaperPlaza system. You begin by compiling your own list of reviewers. Follow the link Reviewers on your workspace page to do this. You can find details about this process in the PaperPlaza help pages under "Compiling my reviewer list".

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Paperplaza has a very nice feature to help you choose your reviewers, but it has a potential for misuse. The feature is that you can get a list of registered users whose keywords match the paper at hand, so that a reviewer can be recruited with a single click. The abuse of this feature is that the AE selects a reviewer whom the AE does not know, and whose expertise is not proven. It may thus happen that junior members of the community, or simply people that are associated to a keyword by chance or mistake, are asked a review in a field where they are not competent. This is clearly unacceptable, and ultimately counterproductive in terms of time - as the reviewer will probably decline, or will provide a poor-quality review.

Also, please note that you should not add new users to the system unless you are certain that they are not already registered. Multiple PINs for a single user can cause significant difficulty and confusion.

After you have compiled your list of reviewers, a review can be requested by following the Reviews link for a submission, then clicking the Request a review link. You may edit the standard form letter as you please. You must click Send to actually generate the e-mail invitation to the reviewer.

Do not enlist more than 4 reviewers per paper. This needlessly focuses too much reviewer time on an individual paper. The reviewer pool is limited, and we must not waste their collective time in providing an excessive number of reviews per paper.

Once you have 2-4 accepted reviewers for each paper, you should send out frequent reminders to these reviewers of the due date. The review schedule is very tight, and must be followed very closely, to ensure a quality review process.

Once you have collected all reviews, you should prepare and submit your AE Review Summary Report. In your report, you should briefly summarize the reviews (please avoid copying excerpts of the reviews in your report, as authors will see the reviews anyway), state your own opinion on the paper, and note any special circumstances that may apply. For example, if two reviews are in serious conflict, the AE Report should resolve the conflict if possible. If neither review is substantive, the AE Review Summary Report should give a solid rationale for the decision to be taken. If the reviews disagree, please do not merely give the average as your rating. As AE, your role is to settle the conflict. 

The text part of your report will be received by authors: in this text, please do not indicate the decision you recommend, but only the motivations for your recommendation. In some cases the Senior Program Committee may change the recommended decision, and we want to avoid confusing the authors. You will give a recommended score, which is not visible to authors. Once you have submitted your report, the Editor overseeing your reviews will then have the ability to amend your report if needed, based on calibration across multiple papers. The Editor will also have the ability to overwrite your score, if he/she believes it is not consistent with other similarly-reviewed papers.

In recommending your score, please consider that papers with an "A," "B+", or "B" are likely accepts, while those with a "D" are likely rejects. Papers with a "B-," "C" or "C-" are borderline papers: it would be useful if you can provide your opinion (in the confidential comments) on whether the paper should be accepted or not. You should avoid placing many papers in borderline ratings. Since you are the expert on the paper and the issues raised by the reviewers, you should try to lean the paper either towards acceptance or towards rejection, rather than in the middle. Notice that "U" is not "E", i.e. it is not the fifth grade in the technical score scale. Rather, "U" stands for "Unsuitable", and should be used as a flag to signal "problem" papers - e.g. out of scope, or suspect of partial plagiarism, or incomplete, etc.

Note that once you have submitted your AE report, no further reviews can be obtained or entered into the system. When you submit your report, all pending reviews are canceled automatically. If you made a mistake or need to change the report, you must ask the Editor to reopen the paper. 

Summary Rejection

In certain special cases, an AE may recommend that a paper be rejected without sending the paper for review. In such cases, the AE writes a summary review giving the rationale for this decision, and gives the paper an unsatisfactory rating. This is done via the usual AE Review Summary Report mechanism (described above). The Editor assigned to the paper, together with the Editor-in-Chief, will then make the final determination as to whether the paper should be rejected without further review, or should go through the formal review process.

A paper should be rejected without review in any of the following cases:

  • It clearly makes no novel contribution to the state of the art.
  • It contains significant technical errors.
  • The paper has been published previously (i.e., the paper is identical to, or nearly identical to previously published work by the same authors).
  • The paper plagiarizes previously published research by other authors (please see below)

A paper should not be rejected without review merely because it makes only an incremental contribution, because it fails to report real-world experiments or because of poor writing quality. Further, a paper should not be summarily rejected because the AE feels its subject lies outside the scope of ICRA (this judgment is left for the Program Committee). If there is any doubt as to the decision, the paper should be sent for review.

No more that 10-15% of submitted papers will be rejected without review.

Plagiarism

IEEE defines plagiarism as the reuse of someone else's prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source. It is important for all IEEE authors to recognize that plagiarism in any form, at any level, is unacceptable and is considered a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences (source: Section "8.2 Publication Guidelines" of the IEEE PSPB Operations Manual, "Guidelines for Adjudicating Different Levels of Plagiarism.")

Plagiarism cases involve serious accusations, which should be dealt with carefully. IEEE has clear policies to follow.

When a plagiarism case is detected by a CEB reviewer, he/she should inform the Associate Editor who assigned the review, the Editor, and the CEB Editor in Chief. While informing the editorial chain and ultimately the CEB Editor in Chief is mandatory, confidentiality in this process is strongly recommended by IEEE.

The iThenticate tool is used to detect overlaps between the submitted paper and other published documents. The outcome of this tool (available under "CrossCheck") should be used to evaluate whether possible plagiarism issues are present. One should ignore bibliographic overlaps, small matches, etc. If concerns are found, then the paper should be flagged as a possible case of plagiarism (following the link associated with the paper).

For submissions that have overlaps with previously published papers by the same authors (or with papers simultaneously submitted elsewhere), the IEEE rules are that the submission should cite the prior work, and clearly state how the submitted work is different from the previous publication or simultaneous submission. We don't have hard and fast rules for how much overlap with prior publications is too much. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 35% or more (of previously-published material) is a rough limit, although each submission has to be judged on its own merit. Note that overlaps with prior workshop papers (by the same authors) are usually not considered problematic, since IEEE supports the evolutionary publication paradigm of workshop papers being improved to conference papers, which are then improved to journal papers.

When a plagiarism case is detected, and the AE, Editor, and Editor-in-Chief concur on its relevance, the CEB stops the review process, and marks the paper for summary rejection. The Conference will send a summary rejection message with a stern comment, referring authors to IEEE policies, and warning of possibly impending further actions (in serious cases of plagiarism, IEEE Central will contact the authors directly). The EiC submits the case, with all evidence available, to an ad-hoc Committee for follow-up actions at IEEE level - as plagiarism cases usually involve more than one publication, and are of big concern to the Society.

Multiple submission (in which authors submit the same work to multiple venues, either simultaneously or serially) is related to, but not the same as, plagiarism. (Sometimes "multiple submission" is referred to as "self-plagiarism", but according to IEEE guidlines, this is a misnomer.) For submissions that have overlaps with previously published papers by the same authors (or with papers simultaneously submitted elsewhere), the IEEE rules are that the submission should cite the prior work, and clearly state how the submitted work is different from the previous publication or simultaneous submission. For serious multiple submission cases (where the AE, Editor, and Editor-in-chief agree the overlap is too much), the remedy is to reject their paper with a stern note in the Summary Report that the overlap of their paper with their own previously published papers is too much. Or, the authors might only be chastised for not citing their own work which the submission builds upon. These cases will not be forwarded to IEEE for followup.

Award candidates

ICRA features many awards, a some of which are offered each year:

  • Best Automation Paper (est. 1997)
  • Best Conference Paper (est. 1993)
  • Best Manipulation Paper, sponsored by Ben Wegbreit (est. 2000)
  • Best Student Paper (est. 1988)
  • Best Video Proceedings Award (est. 1992)
  • Best Vision Paper (sponsored by Ben Wegbreit) (est. 2000)
  • KUKA Service Robotics Best Paper Award (est. 2008)
  • Intuitive Surgical Best Medical Robotics Paper (est. 2009)
  • Best Cognitive Robotics Award (est. 2009)

The ICRA Program Chair has invited the CEB to designate a number of outstanding papers from which the Senior Program Committee will draw finalists for Conference Awards. Accordingly, Associate Editors are asked to identify which papers in their assignments they would consider as potential candidates for an award. To do so, please use the "Confidential comments to the Program Committee" textbox in your AE Review Summary Report form. It is not necessary to identify which award a paper would be a suitable candidate for. The actual selection of finalists for each award will be made by the Senior Program Committee, using your inputs.

Editor Endorsement of AE reports

The AE's recommendation and score, expressed in the Review Summary Report, will be overviewed by the supervising Editor, who will be responsible for checking that the quality standards of the review process (including number and depth of reviews, quality of AE's report, etc.) have been met. The Editor will update the score and report as needed, based on their calibration across multiple papers. Any confidential comments regarding the report/reviews should be noted in the confidential comments. The authors will see the finalized Review Summary Report prepared by the AE and Editor (but not the score); thus, the report should be carefully written to convey the main issues raised during the review process.

Conflict of Interests

A CEB Editor is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a submitted paper if he or she is a (co-)author of the paper. 

A CEB Associate Editor or a CEB Reviewer is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a submitted paper if

A. he or she is a (co-)author of the paper; or
B. one (or more) of the authors of the paper:

B.i. is, or has been, a student or advisor of that person, or
B.ii. has co-authored a paper or has closely collaborated in a research project with that person in the previous five years, or
B.iii. is employed at the same institution (at the Department or Division level) as that person;

C. there are any other circumstances which may create an appearance that the person might have a bias in the evaluation of the paper.

All COIs should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Information for ICRA Reviewers

Reviewer Timeline for ICRA 2015

1 October 2014 Submission deadline
13 October 2014 AEs begin to assign papers to reviewers
26 October 2014 Deadline for AEs to assign papers to reviewers
18 November 2014 Deadline for reviewers to submit reviews
5 December 2014 Deadline for AE final reports (AEs may request reviewers to revise reviews before this deadline)
14 December 2014 Deadline for Editor endorsements of AE reports
23-24 January 2015 Senior Program Committee Meeting
30 January 2015 Paper acceptance notification
27 February 2015 Final paper deadline

Overview of Review Process and Reviewer Responsibilities

The ICRA Conference Editorial Board (CEB) structure is: one Editor-in-Chief, 15 Editors, more than 300 Associate Editors (AEs), and several thousand Reviewers. Each paper to be reviewed will be assigned to one Editor and to one of the AEs that that Editor supervises. The AE will be responsible for obtaining a minimum of two high quality reviews for each paper they handle, and for preparing an AE recommendation that explains the review result. The Editors will be responsible for reviewing and endorsing the work done by the AEs on the papers for which they are responsible. The task of the Reviewers is to provide high-quality assessments of each individual paper assigned to them. These include statements about their own confidence, different criteria for the papers, a potential confidential statement to the CEB as well as a detailed review describing the contribution of paper and justifying the overall assessment.

This page focuses on issues for Reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

A. A Reviewer is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a submitted paper if he or she is a (co-)author of the paper; or

B. one (or more) of the authors of the paper:
          B.i. is, or has been, a student or advisor of that person, or
          B.ii. has co-authored a paper or has closely collaborated in a research project with that person in the previous five years, or  
          B.iii. is employed at the same institution (at the Department or Division level) as that person;

C. there are any other circumstances which may create an appearance that the person might have a bias in the evaluation of the paper.

Scoring Guidelines for Reviewers

The reviews will help to maintain the quality of ICRA. Each review is required to meet the 1,200 non-white character threshold, which has the purpose to provide useful and constructive feedback to the authors. Please refrain from filling the space with meaningless or repeated text. The reviewers should respect the time invested by the authors. They should not accept to review unless they are willing to at provide a meaningful review. The letter-grade system used for scoring papers is described below.

Score Recommendation action Interpretation
A / 5.0 Definitely accept Top 15% of accepted ICRA papers, an excellent paper. I advocate and will fight for acceptance.
B+ / 4.5 Accept A great paper. I will strongly argue for acceptance.
B / 4.0 High Borderline I am leaning to accept. This paper should be accepted, although I would not be upset if it were rejected.
B- / 3.5 Borderline I am undecided, I would not be upset if it were accepted or rejected.
C / 3.0 Low Borderline I am leaning to reject. This paper should be rejected, although I would not be upset if it were accepted.
C- / 2.5 Reject The paper needs substantial improvements. I will strongly argue for rejection.
D / 2.0 Definitely Reject The paper is trivial or wrong or known. It is clearly below ICRA conference quality, I assume no further discussion is needed.
U / 1.0 Inappropriate This does not fit the conference or its standards.



Plagiarism

If you suspect plagiarism or multiple submission (sometimes referred to as self-plagiarism), please notify your AE but proceed to review the paper in the standard way. Lack of citation to prior work should be noted in your review, but reviewers should not directly accuse authors of "plagiarism". Other members of the CEB and, if necessary, IEEE committees, will determine if plagiarism has occured.

ICRA Keywords

Additive Manufacturing
Aerial Robotics
Agent-Based Systems
Agricultural Automation
AI Reasoning Methods
Animation and Simulation
Automation at Micro-Nano Scales
Automation in Life Sciences: Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and Health Care
Automation Technologies for Smart Cities
Autonomous Agents
Autonomous Navigation
Behaviour-Based Systems
Biologically-Inspired Robots
Biomimetics
Brain Machine Interface
Building Automation for Energy Efficiency, Comfort, and Safety
Calibration and Identification
Cellular and Modular Robots
Climbing robots
Cognitive Human-Robot Interaction
Collision Avoidance
Compliance and Impedance Control
Compliant Assembly
Compliant Joint/Mechanism
Computer Vision for Robotics and Automation
Contact Modelling
Control Architectures and Programming
Cooperative Manipulators
Dexterous Manipulation
Direct/Inverse Dynamics Formulation
Discrete Event Dynamic Automation Systems
Distributed Robot Systems
Domestic Robots
Education Robotics
Energy and Environment-aware Automation
Factory Automation
Failure Detection and Recovery
Field Robots
Flexible Arms
Force and Tactile Sensing
Force Control
Formal methods in robotics and automation
Foundations of Automation
Gesture, Posture and Facial Expressions
Grasping
Haptics and Haptic Interfaces
Health Care Management
Human detection & tracking
Human Performance Augmentation
Human-Centered Automation
Humanoid and Bipedal Locomotion
Humanoid Robots
Hydraulic/Pneumatic Actuators
Industrial Robots
Intelligent and Flexible Manufacturing
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Kinematics
Learning and Adaptive Systems
Localization
Logistics
Manipulation Planning
Manufacturing, Maintenance and Supply Chains
Mapping
Marine Robotics
Mechanism Design of Manipulators
Mechanism Design of Mobile Robots
Medical Robots and Systems
Micro/Nano Robots
Mining Robotics
Mobile Manipulation
Motion and Path Planning
Motion Control of Manipulators
Multi-legged Robots
Multifingered Hands
Networked Robots
Neurorobotics
New Actuators for Robotics
Nonholonomic Mechanisms and Systems
Nonholonomic Motion Planning
Object detection, segmentation, categorization
Omnidirectional Vision
Parallel Robots
Passive Walking
Path Planning for Multiple Mobile Robots or Agents
Personal Robots
Physical Human-Robot Interaction
Planning, Scheduling and Coordination
Product Design, Development and Prototyping
Prosthetics and Exoskeletons
Range Sensing
Reactive and Sensor-Based Planning
Recognition
Redundant Robots
Rehabilitation Robotics
RGB-D Perception
Robot Audition
Robot Companions and Social Human-Robot Interaction
Robot Safety
Robotic Software, Middleware and Programming Environments
Robotics in Agriculture and Forestry
Robotics in Construction
Robotics in Hazardous Fields
Robust/Adaptive Control of Robotic Systems
Search and Rescue Robots
Semantic Scene Understanding
Semiconductor Manufacturing
Sensor Fusion
Sensor Networks
Service Robots
SLAM
Soft Material Robotics
Space Exploration Rover
Space Robotics
Surgical Robotics: Laparoscopy
Surgical Robotics: Planning
Surgical Robotics: Steerable Catheters/Needles
Surveillance Systems
Sustainable Production and Service Automation
Teleoperation
Telerobotics
Tendon/Wire Mechanism
Underactuated Robots
Virtual Reality and Interfaces
Visual Learning
Visual Place Recognition
Visual Servoing
Visual Tracking
Visual-Based Control and/or Navigation
Wheeled Robots