Menu Close

Reviewing Criteria

Instructions for Reviewers

The following guidelines will be used by reviewers to review research papers and experience reports. The guidelines have been taken from SIGCSE 2026’s reviewing criteria.

Research Papers

Motivation

Evaluate the submissions clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of COMPUTE

  • The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.
  • The submission states a set of clear Research Questions or Specific Aims/Goals.

Prior and Related Work

Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results. 

  • Discussion of prior and related work (e.g., theories, recent empirical findings, curricular trends) to contextualize and motivate the research is adequate
  • The relationship between prior work and the current study is clearly stated
  • The work leverages theory where appropriate.

Approach

Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals. 

  • Study methods and data collection processes are transparent and clearly described.
  • The methodology described is a valid/sound way to answer the research questions posed or address the aims of the study identified by the authors.
  • The submission provides enough detail to support replication of the methods.

Evidence

Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims. 

  • The analysis & results are clearly presented and aligned with the research questions/goals.
  • Qualitative or quantitative data is interpreted appropriately.
  • Claims are well supported by the data presented.
  • The threats to validity and/or study limitations are clearly stated

Contribution & Impact

Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.

  • All CER papers should advance our knowledge of computing education
  • Quantitative research should discuss generalizability or transferability of findings beyond the original context.
  • Qualitative research should add deeper understanding about a specific context or problem

Presentation

Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.

Reference Integrity

Verify that all cited references are genuine and accurately reported, with no fabricated or hallucinated sources.

  • All references correspond to real, verifiable publications.
  • Bibliographic details (authors, title, venue, year) are accurate, and each citation actually supports the claim it is attached to.

Experience Reports and Tools

Motivation

Evaluate the submissions clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of COMPUTE

  • The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.
  • Objectives or goals of the experience report are clearly stated, with an emphasis on contextual factors that help readers interpret the work.
  • ERT submissions need not be framed around a set of research questions or theoretical frameworks.

Prior and related work

Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results. 

  • Discussion of prior and related work to contextualize and motivate the experience report is adequate
  • The relationship between prior work and the experience or tool is clearly stated

Approach

Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals.

  • For tool focused papers: Is the design of the tool appropriate for its stated goals? Is the context of its deployment clearly described?
  • For experience report papers: Is the experience sufficiently described to understand how it was designed/executed and who the target learner populations were?
  • For all papers: To what extent does the paper provide reasonable mechanisms of formative assessment about the experience or tool?

Evidence

Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims. 

  • The submission provides rich reflection on what did or didn’t work, and why
  • Evidence presented in ERT papers is often descriptive or narrative in format, and may or may not be driven by explicit motivating questions.
  • Claims about the experience or tool are sufficiently scoped within the bounds of the evidence presented.

Contribution and Impact

Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission. 

  • Why the submission is of interest to the COMPUTE community is clearly explained
  • The work enables adoption by other practitioners
  • The work highlights the novelty of the experience or tool presented
  • The implications for future work/use are clearly stated

Presentation

Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission. 

  • The presentation (writing, graphs, or diagrams) is clear
  • Overall flow and organization are appropriate

Reference Integrity

Verify that all cited references are genuine and accurately reported, with no fabricated or hallucinated sources. 

  • All references correspond to real, verifiable publications.
  • Bibliographic details (authors, title, venue, year) are accurate, and each citation actually supports the claim it is attached to.