• Home

• Preface

• Introduction and Focus

• Conference Committee

• Review Committee

• Review Process

• Peer-reviewed Papers

• Research-in-Progress Papers

• Invited Speakers

• Sponsors & Organisers

• Contact

Review Process

The Review Process was undertaken by experienced and well respected Information Security experts. In a blind peer-review process full papers were scrutinised by an international panel of reviewers. The reviewers were asked to provide specific feedback and comments to authors. This feedback was provided to give a perspective on how a paper can be improved for final submission and inclusion in this - the formal conference proceedings.

A ‘Call for Papers’ was issued in January 2009, inviting anyone interested in making a contribution towards the conference by submitting a short abstract by the end of March 2009. Abstracts were received and subsequently divided into broad topics by the Programme Committee. The abstracts, within a broad field, were forwarded to a review panel in the field to judge on the possible acceptability of the abstract based upon the scope and depth of the subject matter to the conference as a whole. The authors were then requested to submit full papers by the end of April 2009. These draft papers were "anonomised", and then forwarded to two independent reviewers, with the request that the full paper should be reviewed and judged according to a number of criteria. Reviewers were asked to use a 10 point Likert scale to rate the following criteria:

• Originality
• Significance
• Technical Quality
• Relevance

Reviewers were also asked to give an Overall Rating as well as a Confidence in Rating for each the paper. In the next section, reviewers had to qualify their rating by providing a rationale for the Overall Rating given. This was followed by the Reviewer Comments that would assist the authors in improving and correcting their papers. Reviewers were asked to be as comprehensive as possible in this section.

The Programme Committee received the completed review forms from the Reviewers and combined the scores from the reviewers for each paper to determine whether they would be accepted or not. Only papers with a combined value above a certain threshold were accepted as full papers. In the event where two reviewers differed drastically from one another, the paper was sent to a third reviewer.

The reviewers' comments were forwarded to the author with the request to submit a final revised version of the paper by May 2009. Only those papers which were of an acceptable quality as recommended by both Reviewers are included in the Conference Proceedings as Reviewed Papers.

The review process used is based on what is considered the international de facto standard for blind paper reviews.