{"id":397,"date":"2026-07-21T11:48:59","date_gmt":"2026-07-21T06:18:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/?page_id=397"},"modified":"2026-07-21T11:54:17","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T06:24:17","slug":"reviewing-criteria","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/reviewing-criteria\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewing Criteria"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Instructions for Reviewers<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The following guidelines will be used by reviewers to review research papers and experience reports. The guidelines have been taken from <a href=\"https:\/\/2027.sigcse-ts.acm.org\/track\/sigcse-ts-2027-Papers-1#paper-reviewing-guidelines-cer-ert-and-pci\">SIGCSE 2026\u2019s reviewing criteria<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><mark>Research Papers<\/mark><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Motivation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the submissions clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of COMPUTE<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The submission states a set of clear <strong>Research Questions or Specific Aims\/Goals.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Prior and Related Work<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Discussion of prior and related work (e.g., theories, recent empirical findings, curricular trends) to contextualize and motivate the research is adequate<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The relationship between prior work and the current study is clearly stated<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The work leverages theory where appropriate.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Approach<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Study methods and data collection processes are transparent and clearly described.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The submission provides enough detail to support replication of the methods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Evidence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The analysis &amp; results are clearly presented and aligned with the research questions\/goals.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Qualitative or quantitative data is interpreted appropriately.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Claims are well supported by the data presented.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The <strong>threats to validity<\/strong> and\/or study limitations are clearly stated<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Contribution &amp; Impact<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>All CER papers should advance our knowledge of computing education<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Quantitative research should discuss generalizability or transferability of findings beyond the original context.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Qualitative research should add deeper understanding about a specific context or problem<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Presentation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Reference Integrity<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Verify that all cited references are genuine and accurately reported, with no fabricated or hallucinated sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>All references correspond to real, verifiable publications.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bibliographic details (authors, title, venue, year) are accurate, and each citation actually supports the claim it is attached to.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><mark>Experience Reports and Tools<\/mark><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Motivation<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the submissions clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of COMPUTE<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Objectives or goals<\/strong> of the experience report are clearly stated, with an emphasis on contextual factors that help readers interpret the work.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>ERT submissions <strong>need not<\/strong> be framed around a set of research questions or theoretical frameworks.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Prior and related work<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the use of prior literature to situate the work, highlight its novelty, and interpret its results.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Discussion of prior and related work to contextualize and motivate the experience report is adequate<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The relationship between prior work and the experience or tool is clearly stated<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Approach<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>For tool focused papers: Is the design of the tool appropriate for its stated goals? Is the context of its deployment clearly described?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For experience report papers: Is the experience sufficiently described to understand how it was designed\/executed and who the target learner populations were?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>For all papers: To what extent does the paper provide reasonable mechanisms of formative assessment about the experience or tool?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Evidence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The submission provides rich reflection on what did or didn\u2019t work, and why<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evidence presented in ERT papers is often descriptive or narrative in format, and may or may not be driven by explicit motivating questions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Claims about the experience or tool are sufficiently scoped within the bounds of the evidence presented.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Contribution and Impact<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Why the submission is of interest to the COMPUTE community is clearly explained<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The work enables adoption by other practitioners<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The work highlights the novelty of the experience or tool presented<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The implications for future work\/use are clearly stated<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Presentation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The presentation (writing, graphs, or diagrams) is clear<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Overall flow and organization are appropriate<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Reference Integrity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Verify that all cited references are genuine and accurately reported, with no fabricated or hallucinated sources.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>All references correspond to real, verifiable publications.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bibliographic details (authors, title, venue, year) are accurate, and each citation actually supports the claim it is attached to.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-397","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=397"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/397\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":404,"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/397\/revisions\/404"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/isigcse.acm.org\/compute\/2026\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}