(
As=20
a reviewer for SIGMOD you have the responsibility to protect the =
confidentiality=20
of the ideas represented in the papers you review. SIGMOD submissions =
are by=20
their very nature not published documents. The work is considered new or =
proprietary by the authors; otherwise they would not have submitted it. =
Of=20
course, their intent is to ultimately publish to the world, but most of =
the=20
submitted papers will not appear in the SIGMOD proceedings. Thus, it is =
likely=20
that the paper you have in your hands will be refined further and =
submitted to=20
some other journal or conference, or even to SIGMOD next year.
Protection=20 of the ideas in the papers you receive means:
As=20 a reviewer of a SIGMOD paper you have a certain power over the reviewing = process. It is important for you to avoid any conflict of interest. Even = though=20 you would, of course, act impartially on any paper, there should be = absolutely=20 no question about the impartiality of review. Thus, if you are assigned = a paper=20 where your review might create the perception (or reality) of a possible = conflict of interest, you should return the paper and not submit a = review.=20 Conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) papers to which = you=20 contributed directly, or which were written by a current student or = close=20 collaborator. The blind reviewing process will help hide the authorship = of most=20 such papers. But if you recognize the work and feel it could present a = conflict=20 of interest, the software allows you to mark a conflict and explain your = reasons. I expect such marking of conflicts as very = rare.
SIGMOD=20 2007 is required to use double-blind reviewing. Therefore, = irrespective=20 of your personal feelings about double-blind reviewing, you must = support=20 double-blind reviewing. Authors have been given guidelines on how to = approach=20 double-blind reviewing. Please review the submission page to familiarize = yourself. If authors have = not made=20 reasonable effort to conform to double-blind reviewing, the paper could = be=20 rejected. Reasonable effort means the author followed the guidelines in = the=20 submission page. Your ability to guess/discover an author=92s identity = based on=20 your past experience, extensive web search, non-obvious "clues" in the = submitted=20 paper, and other exploratory means are not necessarily grounds for = rejection.=20
The=20 paper publishing business in SIGMOD is very serious indeed: careers and=20 reputations hinge on publishing in the proceedings, academic tenure = decisions=20 are based on the proceedings, and have bearings on patent infringement = cases.=20 Therefore, we have a responsibility to be serious in the reviewing = process. You=20 should make an effort to do a good review. This is obvious. But one of = the=20 complaints we have heard about the SIGMOD review process is that some = reviews=20 can be so sketchy that it looks like the reviewer did not even seem to = take the=20 time to read the paper carefully. A casual or flippant review of a paper = that=20 the author has seriously submitted is not appropriate. In the long run, = casual=20 reviewing hurts the conference seriously.
Belittling=20 or sarcastic comments may help display one=92s wit, but they are = unnecessary in=20 the reviewing process. The most valuable comments in a review are those = that=20 help the authors understand the shortcomings of their work and how they = might=20 improve it. If you intensely dislike a paper, give it a low score. That = makes a=20 sufficient statement. That is, be compassionate with your comments, but = be firm=20 with your scores.
While=20 it is usual for Program Committee members to seek help from experts = outside of=20 the Program Committee, you should read the papers as well so that you = can=20 discuss your reviews with the rest of the Program Committee during = online=20 discussion. In order to reduce COI, you should refrain from seeking help = outside=20 your department or organization. =20 Kindly make sure that you give the reviewer ethics guidelines = (this file)=20 to any external reviewer you use as they must be bound by the same = rules.
Adherence=20 to ethics makes the whole reviewing process sometimes less efficient. = But=20 convenience, efficiency, and expediency are not good reasons to = contravene=20 ethics. Ultimately, spending that energy and time is an investment into = the=20 long-term health of the technical-paper sessions, the conference, and = the=20 community of database researchers.