The conference is run by a student committee, supervised by a senior academic committee of faculty members. Being a student conference, most committee members are students — and may themselves submit. The rules below explain how decisions are made and how conflicts of interest are handled so that the process stays fair.
Senior academic committee
Luiz Chamon and Aymeric Dieuleveut.
The senior academic committee supervises the whole process: it validates the rules of the conference, arbitrates sensitive cases escalated by the chairs, takes part in the final program decisions, and decides all awards on the basis of the reviews and decisions.
Area chairs
To be announced.
Each area chair follows a set of submissions (around eight) through the review process. Area chairs do not write reviews themselves: they assign and monitor reviewers, lead the discussion among them, consolidate the reviews into a recommendation, and propose the decision for each submission they follow. Together with the senior academic committee, they take the final decisions on the program (posters and orals).
Program chairs
To be announced.
The program chairs coordinate the whole process and are the main contact point of the conference for any general question.
Publication chair
To be announced.
The publication chair helps authors get their submissions through the pipeline: the Pull-Request checks, the rendering of the blog post, and the final merge and publication of accepted posts on this website.
Ethics chair
To be announced.
The ethics chair is the person to contact in case of conflict: conflicts of interest, concerns about plagiarism or misconduct, or any dispute arising during the review process. They handle such cases confidentially, together with the senior academic committee when needed.
Local chair
To be announced.
The local chair leads the organization of the on-site conference: venue, program logistics, poster sessions, and oral presentations on the conference day.
How decisions are made
The pipeline is: submission → automatic checks → double-blind review → discussion → decision → final version → publication.
- Each submission receives at least two reviews (every submitting author also reviews two submissions), following the public criteria of the reviewer guidelines.
- The area chair in charge of the submission leads the discussion among reviewers and consolidates a recommendation.
- Accept/reject decisions and the program (posters and orals) are taken collectively by the area chairs together with the senior academic committee.
- Awards are decided solely by the senior academic committee, based on the reviews and decisions.
Conflicts of interest
Committee members are students and may submit to the conference — their submissions go through the normal review process. Fairness is preserved by strict conflict rules:
- No one ever handles their own submission. An area chair who is an author of — or in conflict with — a submission (co-author, same project group, close collaborator) is excluded from its review, which is assigned to another area chair.
- Reviewers declare their conflicts when they are assigned submissions, and we avoid same-school assignments when the reviewer pool allows it.
- Review is double blind: reviewers do not know who the authors are, and commit to not trying to find out.
- Conflicts involving the chairs themselves are arbitrated by the senior academic committee; the ethics chair can be contacted confidentially at any point.
- Awards are decided by the senior academic committee only — faculty members who do not compete — so student chairs competing in the conference have no influence on prizes.
For any question: contact the Program Chairs (contact to be announced).