DemosSIGCSE TS 2025

Demos provide a way to showcase an educational tool or project in a live setting. Not designed to be sales pitches, demonstrations are a way for the community to see the relevance, potential, and innovation of the tool and allow time for discussion with its creators. These demos are not for presentation of existing commercial tools.

Authors submitting work to SIGCSE TS 2025 are responsible for complying with all applicable conference authorship policies and those articulated by ACM. If you have questions about any of these policies, please contact program@sigcse2025.sigcse.org for clarification prior to submission.

ACM has made a commitment to collect ORCiD IDs from all published authors (https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs). All authors on each submission must have an ORCiD ID (https://orcid.org/register) in order to complete the submission process. Please make sure to get your ORCID ID in advance of submitting your work.

Presentation Modality

At least one author of accepted submissions in this track will register and present the Demo in-person at the conference. There will be no remote demonstration presentations.

Deadlines and Submission

Demo submissions consist of answers to a series of prompts, on EasyChair, including a 250-word short abstract, a description about the proposed Demo session, and references.

Demo submissions to the SIGCSE TS 2025 must be made through EasyChair no later than Monday, 14 October 2024. The track chairs reserve the right to desk reject submissions that are incomplete after the deadline has passed.

Important Dates

Authors may find it useful to read the Instruction for Reviewers and the Review Form to understand how their submissions will be reviewed. Also note that when submitting, you will need to provide between 3-7 related topics from the Topics list under Info.

Abstract, Description and References

All Demo submissions must have a plain-text abstract of up to 250 words which will be published in the proceedings. Abstracts should not contain subheadings or citations. The abstract should be submitted in EasyChair along with the submission metadata, the description of the Demo, and References.

Single Anonymized Review

Submissions to the Demo track are reviewed with the single-anonymous review process. Submissions should include author names and affiliations. Thus, the author identities are known to reviewers, but reviewers are anonymous to each other and to the authors.

The reviewing process includes a discussion phase after initial reviews have been posted. During this time, the reviewers can examine all reviews and privately discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the work in an anonymous manner through EasyChair. This discussion information can be used by the track chairs in addition to the content of the review in making final acceptance decisions.

The SIGCSE TS 2025 review process does not have a rebuttal period for authors to respond to comments, and all acceptance decisions are final.

ACM Policies

By submitting your article to an ACM Publication, you are hereby acknowledging that you and your co-authors are subject to all ACM Publications Policies, including ACM’s new Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/research-involving-human-participants-and-subjects). Alleged violations of this policy or any ACM Publications Policy will be investigated by ACM and may result in a full retraction of your paper, in addition to other potential penalties, as per ACM Publications Policy. See also the authorship policies.

ACM has made a commitment to collect ORCiD IDs from all published authors (https://authors.acm.org/author-resources/orcid-faqs). All authors on each submission must have an ORCiD ID (https://orcid.org/register) in order to complete the submission process. Please make sure to get your ORCID ID in advance of submitting your work.

Additional details are in the instructions for authors.

Getting ready

• Make sure that all authors have obtained an ORCiD identifier. These identifiers are required for paper submission.
• Check the author list carefully now and review with your co-authors. The authors on the submission must be the same as the authors on the final version of the work (assuming the work is accepted). Authors may not be added or removed after submission and must also appear in the same order as in the submission.
• Identify at least one author who is willing to review for the symposium. Have that author or those authors sign up to review at https://tinyurl.com/review-sigcse25. (If they’ve done so already, there is no need to fill out the form a second time.) Researchers listed as co-authors on three or more submissions must volunteer to review. (Undergraduate co-authors are exempt from this requirement.)
• Review Additional Format Instructions in Instructions for Authors Tab and on EasyChair- be sure you are aware of all required items.
• Review the additional resources.
• Review the instructions for reviewers and the Review Form to see what reviewers will be looking for in your paper.
• Look at the list of topics in the Info menu on this site or on EasyChair and pick 3-7 appropriate topics for your submission.
• Look at the EasyChair submission page to make sure you’ll be prepared to fill everything out. Note that you are permitted to update your submission until the deadline, so it is fine to put draft information there as you get ready.

The submission on EasyChair

Note: EasyChair does not let you save incomplete submission forms. Please fill out all of the fields in one sitting and save them. After that, you can continue to update the information in the fields and your submission until the deadline.

• Ensure that your submission does not exceed the word or character limits given on EasyChair.
• Ensure that your submission contains all author names and affiliations, as per the instructions for authors.
• Submit the final version by 11:59 p.m. AOE, Monday, 14 October 2024.

What Gets Published?

The full text of accepted demonstration submissions will not appear in the ACM digital library. Only the title, author metadata, and the 250-word abstract will be included in the official conference proceedings.

Presentation Details

By SIGCSE policy, at least one author of an accepted Demo is required to register, attend, and present the work. SIGCSE TS 2025 will allow for authors to present their demos only in-person.

Below is the list of the AV equipment that will be provided in the exhibition hall:

• 75" LED Monitor w / Stand.
• HDMI connection.
• Wireless Slide Advancer w / Laser Pointer.
• Mackie 808 w / (1) SX 300 Speaker.
• Podium microphone.
• Laptop audio.

Please note the following:

• Arrive 15 minutes early before the session starts to set up your equipment and troubleshoot any issues.
• The Demo area will be an open space in the exhibition hall set with theatre seating for the audience and a table for the presenter’s laptop.
• There will not be a place to hang a poster or other material.
• Whilst there will be attendee Wi-Fi available, please be prepared for the possibility of running the Demo without the internet in case the connection is not strong.

Past Sample Demo Proposal - ACM Format.pdf

Sample Demo Proposal - ACM Format.doc

Note that you will enter the information in a form on EasyChair rather than using the 2-page format of this document. Use this document for content ideas.

Language Editing Assistance

ACM has partnered with International Science Editing (ISE) to provide language editing services to ACM authors. ISE offers a comprehensive range of services for authors including standard and premium English language editing, as well as illustration and translation services. Editing services are at author expense and do not guarantee publication of a manuscript.

Table of Contents

• Overview
• Submission and Review System
• Single-Anonymous Review Process
• Getting Started Reviewing
• Demo Review Guidlelines
• Discussion
• Recalcitrant Reviewers

Overview

Demos provide a way to showcase an educational tool or project in a live setting. Not designed to be sales pitches, demonstrations are a way for the community to see the relevance, potential, and innovation of the tool and allow time for discussion with its creator. Submissions consist of a 2-page description about the proposed Demo session including a 250-word short abstract.

Since SIGCSE TS 2025 is planned to be held as an on-site event, Demos will take place during break periods and will last 45 minutes. Thus physical presence of at least one of the presenters at the conference site is mandatory.

Submission and Review System

The review process for SIGCSE TS 2025 will be done using the EasyChair submission system (https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=sigcsets2025) . Reviewers will be invited to join/login into EasyChair, update their profile, and select 3-5 topics that they are most qualified to review. To do so, reviewers select SIGCSE TS 2025 > Conference > My topics from the menu and select at most 5 topics. More topics make it harder for the EasyChair system to make a good set of matches. Reviewers also identify their Conflicts of Interest by selecting SIGCSE TS 2025 > Conference > My Conflicts.

Single-Anonymous Review Process

Submissions to the Demo track are reviewed with the single-anonymous review process. Submissions should include author names and affiliations. Thus, the author identities are known to reviewers, but reviewers are anonymous to each other and to the authors.

The reviewing process includes a discussion phase after initial reviews have been posted. During this time, the reviewers can examine all reviews and privately discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the work in an anonymous manner through EasyChair. Reviewers can refer to each other by their reviewer number on that submission’s review. This discussion information can be used by the track chairs in addition to the content of the review in making final acceptance decisions.

The SIGCSE TS 2025 review process does not have a rebuttal period for authors to respond to comments, and all acceptance decisions are final.

Getting Started Reviewing

Before starting your review, you may be asked by the Track Chairs to declare conflicts with any submitting authors. Please do so in a timely manner so we can avoid conflicts during assignment.

As a Reviewer, we ask that you carefully read each submission assigned to you and write a constructive review that concisely summarizes what you believe the submission to be about. When reviewing a submission, consider:

• the strengths and weaknesses,
• the contribution to an outstanding SIGCSE TS 2025 program and experience for attendees, and
• how it brings new ideas or extends current ideas through replication to the field and to practitioners and researchers of computing education.

Demo Review Guidelines

We strongly recommend that you prepare your review in a separate document; EasyChair has been known to time out.

As you write your review, please keep in mind that the Demos are meant to be interactive. Do the authors describe how they plan to engage with attendees? Do the proposed activities fit into the 45-minute time frame? Are the timing details given and reasonable? Have the authors considered the situation of attendees arriving late? Is the subject of interest to the SIGCSE TS audience? Does the Demo satisfy a timely need?

Please provide constructive feedback and clearly justify your choice of rating to help the authors. A review that gives a low score with no written comments is not helpful to the authors since it simply tells the authors that they have been unsuccessful, with no indication of how or why.

Reviewers will be asked to summarize the work, provide their familiarity with the submission topic, describe the expected audience, identify strengths and weaknesses of the submissions, and provide an overall evaluation. Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the program committee to address concerns about the submission. These comments will not be shared with submitting authors.

While your review text should clearly support your scores and recommendation, please do not include your preference for acceptance or rejection of a submission in the feedback to the authors. Instead, use the provided radio buttons to make a recommendation (the authors will not see this) based on your summary review and provide any details that refer to your recommendation directly in the confidential comments to the APC or track chairs. Remember that as a reviewer, you will only see a small portion of the submissions, so one that you recommend for acceptance may be rejected when considering the other reviewer recommendations and the full set of submissions.

Discussion

The discussion and recommendation period provides the opportunity for the Track Chairs to discuss reviews and feedback so they can provide the best recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs and that the submission is given full consideration in the review process. We ask that Reviewers engage in discussion when prompted by other reviewers and the Track Chairs by using the Comments feature of EasyChair. During this period you will be able to revise your review based on the discussion, but you are not required to do so.

The Track Chairs will make a final recommendation to the Program Chairs from your feedback.

Recalcitrant Reviewers

Reviewers who don’t submit reviews, have reviews with limited constructive feedback, do not engage effectively in the discussion phase or submit inappropriate reviews will be removed from the reviewer list (as per SIGCSE policy). Recalcitrant reviewers will be informed of their removal from the reviewer list. Reviewers with repeated offenses (two within a three-year period) will be removed from SIGCSE reviewing for three years.

The following text represents the review form.

Summary: Please provide a brief summary of the submission, its audience, and its main point(s).

Familiarity: Rate your personal familiarity with the topic area of this submission in relation to your research or practical experience.

Overall evaluation: Please provide a detailed justification that includes constructive feedback that summarizes the strengths & weaknesses of the submission and clarifies your scores. Both the score and the review text are required, but remember that the authors will not see the overall recommendation score (only your review text). You should NOT directly include your preference for acceptance or rejection in your review.