This repository contains guides for reviewers and meta-reviewers of the NIME conference.
NIME, as a community, is an international network of artists, researchers, technologists and practitioners who use, make, examine, critique, create and think about digital musical instruments.
NIME, as a conference, is an annual gathering of people in the NIME community where we share and discuss our work. Every year the NIME conference proceedings are selected by a peer review process, to gather together the work of the highest relevance and quality that represents the latest in NIME thinking and practice.
Anyone in the NIME community can submit work for publication, and we encourage everyone in the community to act as a reviewer.
The NIME chairs rely on reviews and meta-reviews to determine which submissions are included in the NIME program and proceedings.
Reviews are vitally important to NIME’s present and its future, as the proceedings are the primary record of the development of NIME work and thinking.
Every reviewer is important, because it’s through a plurality of voices, perspectives, and experiences that we can select the submissions that best represent what we as a community value, find important, and want to share. Reviewers and meta-reviewers are the lifeblood of the reviewing process.
We strive to have three reviewers for every submission in order to offer authors, artists and the conference committee a range of perspectives on each submission. Reviewers offer their assessment of the submission on the basis of its quality and potential contribution to the NIME community.
There are two types of reviewers at NIME: Reviewers, and meta-reviewers, both of which are equally vital to the quality of the NIME proceedings.
Reviewers are peers within the NIME community who assess submissions on the basis of quality. In general, all NIME submissions are assigned three reviewers to gather a range of perspectives. Reviewers generally have experience presenting or publishing in the NIME conference or related scholarly venues or events and have experiences (e.g., completing graduate studies) that objectively qualify them in peer evaluation.
Meta-reviewers are experienced NIME scholars and artists with considerable domain knowledge and reviewing experience. Meta-reviewers consider the reviewers' perspectives and their own assessment of a submission to make an acceptance recommendation to the track chairs. Meta-reviewers do not simply average reviewers' scores but can engage the reviewers in discussion as well as contribute their own perspective to either reach a consensus, or articulate different review perspectives and ensure that feedback to authors is appropriate.
- Ken Hinckly - On Excellence in Reviews and Meta Reviews and Championing Submitted Work That Has Merit
- Unofficial Guide to Reviewing for SIGCHI
- Jeffrey Bardzell: A Position on Peer Reviewing in HCI
- Modified by Florent Berthaut, Doga Buse Cavdir, Yichen Wang, and Charles Martin (2025)
- Created by Courtney Reed and Astrid Bin (2024)