INFOCOM 2011 TPC Informational Meeting

1. INFOCOM 2011 TPC Informational Meeting TPC co-Chairs Byrav Ramamurthy (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Jie Wu (Temple University) Qian Zhang (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) Technical Program Vice Chair for Information Systems (EDAS) Jiangchuan Liu (Simon Fraser University) 17 March 2010

2. Overview • Multiple-level structure for paper reviewing • TPC Co-chairs • Area TPC (ATPC) Chairs • TPC members (TPC lead and TPC review) andBackup TPC members • Highlights • Increase number of ATPC Chairs • Enhance the ATPC Chairs  paper matching process • Enhance the TPC  paper matching process

3. Reviewing Process

4. ATPC Chairs • In total we will have 39 ATPC Chairs for Infocom 2011 • Detailed information can be found at http://www.comsoc.org/confs/infocom/2011/ • Each ATPC Chair is responsible for 40-50 papers • Papers will be assigned to the ATPC Chairs immediately after the submission deadline • Should decide on “Early reject” in two cases: • Paper is not ready for review (missing figures, clearly out of scope, etc.) • Inconsistency between author names/affiliations on the paper and in EDAS • Such inconsistency may result in assigning papers to reviewers with conflict of interest

5. ATPC Chairs (2) • Oversee the discussion phase; intervene if TPC-Lead is ineffective • Make sure there is consistency between TPC-Lead summary and TPC reviews • Choose/add extra reviewer whenever necessary • E.g., low quality/biased reviews, controversial reviews, missing reviews • Can enter own review • May utilize a subset of TPC members (backup TPC members), who are assigned to help during this phase • Provide recommendation to TPC Chairs • Three outcomes: accept, reject, discuss at TPC meeting • Try hard not to put the paper into the discussion phase • Participate in TPC meeting and lead group discussions

6. Matching Papers to ATPC Chairs • A list of areas will be provided when authors submit paper • Further adjustments will be made to make sure the load balancing among all the ATPC Chairs

7. Matching Papers to TPC Members • Under each area, there are multiple topics • Each topic also includes the methodology that is used, e.g. Theory/Analysis, Simulation, and Experimentation/Measurements • A sample topic can be: • wireless mesh networks: scheduling: experimentation/measurement • TPC members need to indicate their interest in terms of topics (before submission deadline) • TPC members claim papers based on title and abstract (after submission deadline) • Fine adjustment will be made to ensure a good match

8. TPC Members • Review assigned papers (15-18 papers) by due date • Each TPC member will also be TPC-Lead for 4-6 papers in his/her group of papers • NOdelegation of these papers • TPC Leads to provide summary of online discussions • Backup TPC will have no more than 6-8 papers • Quality review is expected within short period of time • Participate in online discussion • Try to resolve conflicts • Attend TPC meeting in Los Angeles, CA • TPC meeting date has been fixed to Nov. 13, 2010

9. TPC Lead • For each paper, one TPC member is designated as TPC Lead • TPC Lead • Must review this paper – NOdelegation • Initiate and lead the online discussion phase • Summarize discussion results and make recommendations (accept, reject, discuss, need additional review) • Summary report is not available to the authors

10. Paper Delegation • Only non-TPC-Lead Papers can be delegated to qualified reviewers • TPC member is responsible for overseeing the quality • Delegation is performed via EDAS • Delegation must be done within 10 days from the date you are assigned the papers • TPC member must personally ensure that the delegated reviews are completed on time • Request the delegated reviewers to participate in the on-line discussion phase • No more than 25% of the non TPC-lead papers may be delegated (~ 3 papers)

11. On-line Discussion Phase • This is a critical part of the review process • Starts after the reviews are due, and will last around 2 weeks • All reviewers of the paper must participate in the on-line discussion through EDAS • During this phase, the reviewers can see the reviews of each other • The reviewers are required to understand the other reviews and to resolve inconsistencies • The discussion is also very important even when there is agreement about accept/reject • E.g. if the paper is ranked (4, 5, 6) (We want to identify the best 3-5 papers for best paper award candidates) • Or if the paper is ranked (1, 1, 4) (We want to give coherent response) • It is acceptable to change your review and score after the discussion! • Please be fair to the authors!!!

12. On-line Discussion (2) • Please provide a detailed discussion related to the technical merits of the paper • For example, “The authors have not cited relevant prior work. The paper has significant technical deficiencies. Equation 12 is incorrect because ...” • Avoid the impulse to push paper to the discussion category straightaway! We are time-constrained at the TPC meeting • (for a 1, 4, 4 paper): “I see we have no consensus. Let’s recommend that the paper be discussed during the TPC meeting.” • “Yes, let’s discuss at the TPC meeting”

13. Detailed Schedule

14. Detailed Schedule (2)

15. Final Points • TPC members are responsible for the delegated reviews • A TPC-Lead must personally review the papers for which he/she is the Lead: NOdelegation • Sufficient discussion during on-line discussion phase is expected • TPC members are expected to resolve inconsistencies during the discussion • ATPC Chairs try to decide reject/accept before putting a paper into the to-be-discussed-at-TPC meeting category • High quality reviews are essential for the success of the conference

16. Contacts • Email: info11.chairs@gmail.com • Individual Emails: • byrav@cse.unl.edu • jiewu@temple.edu • qianzh@cse.ust.hk • jcliu@cs.sfu.ca

17. Questions ?See you all at INFOCOM 2011!

18. Backup

19. Executive Committee • General Chair • Lionel M. Ni, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology • General Co-Chair • Wenjun Zhang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University • General Vice Chair • Minglu Li, Shanghai Jiao Tong University • TPC Co-Chairs • Byrav Ramamurthy, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA • Jie Wu, Temple University • Qian Zhang, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology • Technical Program Vice Chair for Information Systems (EDAS) • Jiangchuan Liu, Simon Fraser University, Canada • Mini-conference Co-chairs • Pedro Ruiz, University of Murcia, Spain • Guohong Cao, The Pennsylvania State University, USA • Panel Chair • Sajal Das, NSF/University Texas at Arlington, USA • Standing Committee Chair • Harvey Freeman, HAF Consulting, Inc., USA

20. Executive Committee (Cont.) • Publicity Co-Chairs • Jatinder Pal Singh, Deutsche Telekom, Inc, USA • Kui Ren, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA • Workshop Co-chairs • Ivan Stojmenovic, University of Ottawa, Canada • Chunming Qiao, SUNY at Buffalo, USA • Demo/Posters Chair • Avinash Srinivashan, Bloomsburg University, USA • Student Activities Chair • Xinbing Wang, Shanghai Jiaotong University, China • Student Travel Grants Co-Chairs • Weiyi Zhang, North Dakota State University, USA • Local Arrangement Chair • Yanmin Zhu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China • Finance Chairs • Bruce Worthman, IEEE ComSoc, USA • GuangTao Xue, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China • Publication Chairs • Kartik Gopalan, State University of New York, USA • Aaron Striegel, University of Notre Dame, USA • Web Chair • Zhaoqing Jia, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China