Program Chair(s) and the Program Committee
The Program Chair(s) shall be appointed no later than 18 months before the scheduled date of the conference. The Program Chair(s) are responsible for planning the technical program of the conference.
The Program Chair(s) will appoint individuals to serve in the program committee (with the advice and consent of the General Chair(s) and the Steering Committee). The Program Committee should be diversified in terms of expertise, geographical distribution, race, and gender. Program Committee members shall be chosen on the basis of their technical qualifications and experience, and should include individuals with expertise in artificial intelligence. The Program Chair(s) should promote continuity by keeping committee members from the previous conferences (e.g., members from past Organizing, Steering and Program Committees).
Program Committee Meetings
At least one-half of the program committee members should attend program committee meetings. At the discretion of the Program Committee Chair, these meetings may be conducted via telephone or electronic mail.
Call For Papers
The Program Chair(s) will prepare the Call For Papers (with the Publicity Chair), send out notification of acceptance and rejection of submitted papers, and send out information to authors for submitting their final papers. The call for papers as well as individuals on the Program Committee shall encourage the submission of high quality papers, including reports on practical experiences with or evaluation of advanced technologies.
Reviews of Submitted Papers
The Program Committee shall be responsible for reviewing all submitted papers, for submitting timely, informative reviews that provide authors with feedback about their papers, and for attending program committee meetings. The Program Chair(s) will determine the procedures for reviewing and accepting papers for the program. They shall distribute the papers for review, and arrange information so the papers can be discussed by knowledgeable reviewers during the program committee meeting. Program committee members can seek expert advice from external reviewers, but they shall be responsible for having reviewed the papers themselves. Each paper shall be reviewed by at least three reviewers and each paper shall be discussed at the program committee meeting.
The conference shall require full papers for review. Papers shall be reviewed by the program committee members. Direct discussion provides other committee members who might be familiar with the work an opportunity to contribute useful information that might affect the outcome of the review process. If consensus can not be formed or there are additional concerns raised about a paper, additional information or reviews should be obtained.
Usually those papers that have received very poor reviews or very strong reviews can be discussed briefly, but an open discussion of all papers is required. It is important that the Program Committee consider all papers fairly.
If a committee member (Program, Organizing, or Steering Committee) of a forthcoming PRICAI submits papers, care must be taken that his/her papers be reviewed at least as stringently as other submitted papers. Committee members shall leave the room during the discussion of their submitted papers or for any paper where he/she might have a conflict of interest.
All discussion about a paper shall remain in confidence. The names of reviewers are not to be revealed to authors. Reviewers, however, shall be free to identify themselves to an author if they so wish.
It is recognized that English may not be the native language of many of the authors of contributed papers. It is still expected, however, that all papers will be reasonably presented and written in acceptable English. It is strongly recommended that authors whose native language is not English to seek professional help in polishing the writing in their papers.
Best Paper Awards
The Program Chair(s) together with some senior Program Committee members should form a sub-committee to deliberate on best student paper or best paper or poster awards. The committee should rigorously deliberate and ensure that award worthy papers/posters have distinguished contributions to the field. The committee may recommend no award if it is not possible to identify any award worthy paper/poster.