PapersSIGCSE Virtual 2026

Papers describe an educational research project, classroom experience, teaching technique, curricular initiative, or pedagogical tool in the computing content domain. All papers submitted to the SIGCSE Virtual should be original work that complies with the ACM authorship policies. SIGCSE Virtual considers papers in three distinct tracks, each with its own unique expectations. See further details below. All submissions will be made through EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigcsev2026). Please review the “Instructions for Authors” page for more details regarding the submission process.

Paper Tracks

Please ensure that you submit your paper to the correct paper track by reading the Reviewing Guidelines. Papers will be reviewed for the track to which they are submitted and will not be moved between tracks. Any submissions made to more than one track will be desk-rejected from both tracks.

Position and Curricula Initiative

The primary purpose of Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI) papers is to present a coherent argument about a computing education topic, including, but not limited to, curriculum or program design, practical and social issues facing computing educators, and critiques of existing practices. PCI papers should substantiate their claims using evidence in the form of thorough literature reviews, analysis of secondary data collected by others, or another appropriate rhetorical approach. PCI contributions should be motivated by prior literature and should highlight the novelty of the presented work. However, in contrast to Computing Education Research (CER) papers, PCI papers need not present original data or adhere to typical rigorous qualitative or quantitative research methods. Moreover, PCI papers differ from Experience Report and Tools (ERT) papers in that they do not necessarily report on individual experiences, programs, or tools, but rather they may focus on broader concerns of the community.

Computing Education Research

The primary purpose of Computing Education Research (CER) papers is to advance what is known about the teaching and learning of computing. CER papers are reviewed relative to the clarity of the research questions posed, the relevance of the work in light of prior literature and theory, the soundness of the methods to address the questions posed, and the overall contribution. Both qualitative and quantitative research are welcomed, as are replication studies and papers that present null or negative results.

Experience Reports and Tools

The primary purpose of Experience Reports and Tools (ERT) papers is observational in nature, and ERT papers should carefully describe the development and use of a computing education approach or tool, the context of its use, including the formative data collected, and provide a rich reflection on what did or didn’t work, and why. ERT contributions should be motivated by prior literature and should highlight the novelty of the experience or tool presented. ERT papers differ from CER papers in that they frame their contributions to enable adoption by other practitioners, rather than focusing on the generalizability or transferability of findings or threats to validity.

Additional Information

Papers submitted to all tracks should address at least one computing content topic. Authors will be asked to select between 3 and 7 topics from this list at the time of submission. Papers deemed outside the conference scope by the program chairs will be desk-rejected without review.

If you have questions, please contact the program chairs at program@virtual2026.sigcse.org.

Abstracts

All papers must have a plain-text abstract of up to 250 words. Abstracts should not contain subheadings or citations. The abstract should be submitted in EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sigcsev2026) along with paper metadata, and the same text should be included in the PDF version of the full paper at the appropriate location.

Page limits

Papers are limited to a maximum of 6 pages of body content (including all titles, author information, abstract, main text, tables and illustrations, acknowledgments, and supplemental material). One additional page may be included, which contains only references. If included, appendix materials MUST NOT be present on the optional references page.

Templates

SIGCSE Virtual is NOT participating in the new ACM TAPS workflow, template, and production system.

All paper submissions must be in English and formatted using the 2-column ACM SIG Conference Proceedings format and US letter size pages (8.5x11 inch or 215.9 x 279.4mm).

Here is an annotated PDF example that has some notes/tips and shows the required sections.

MS Word Authors: Please use the interim Word template provided by ACM.

LaTeX Authors:

• Overleaf provides a suitable two-column SIG conference proceedings template.
• Please do not use the anonymous document class option, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. We’d like to ensure that author blocks appear in the submission, and that option removes them.
• Other LaTeX users may alternatively use the ACM Primary template, adding the “sigconf” format option in the documentclass to obtain the 2-column format. (ACM has recently changed the ACM template, and we have not yet had a chance to verify that the new version works correctly.)
• NOTE: The default LaTeX template text shows appendix materials following the references. SIGCSE Virtual does not permit appendices on the optional page allotted for references. Authors must include all relevant content within the 6 body pages of the paper. References are the ONLY thing that can be added on page 7.
• Accessibility: SIGCSE Virtual authors are strongly encouraged to prepare submissions using these templates in such a manner that the content is widely accessible to potential reviewers, track chairs, and readers. Please see these resources for preparing an accessible submission.

Requirements

Requirements for Double Anonymous Review Process: At the time of submission all entries must include blank space for all anonymous author information (or anonymized author name, institution, location, and email address), followed by an abstract, keywords, CCS Concepts, placeholders for the ACM Reference Format and copyright blocks, and references. For anonymized submissions, all blank space necessary for all author information must be reserved under the Title, or fully anonymized text can take its place (e.g., 4 lines containing Author1, Author1Institution, Author1Location, anon1@university.edu. In addition, please leave enough blank space for what you intend to include for Acknowledgments, but do not include the text, especially names, granting agencies, and grant numbers. Acknowledgments are expected to be part of the body content, not of the optional reference page.

Other requirements: Please provide a separate block for each author, including name, email, institution, location, and country, even if authors share an institution.

Desk Rejects: Papers that do not adhere to page limits or formatting requirements will be desk rejected without review.

Double Anonymized Review

Authors must submit ONLY an anonymized version of the paper. The goal of the anonymized version is to, as much as possible, provide the author(s) of the paper with an unbiased review. The anonymized version must have ALL mentions of the authors removed (including author’s names and affiliation plus identifying information within the body of the paper such as websites or related publications). However, authors are reminded to leave sufficient space in the submitted manuscripts to accommodate author information either at the beginning or end of the paper. LaTeX/Overleaf users are welcome to use the anonymous option, but are reminded that sufficient room must exist in the 6 body pages to include all author blocks when that option is removed. Authors may choose to use placeholder text in the author information block, but we encourage authors to use obviously anonymized placeholders like “Author 1”, “Affiliation 1”, etc.

Self-citations need not be removed if they are worded so that the reviewer doesn’t know if the writer is citing themselves. That is, instead of writing “We reported on our first experiment in 2017 in a previous paper [1]”, the writer might write “In 2017, an initial experiment was done in this area as reported in [1].

As per ACM guidelines, authors may distribute a preprint of their work on ArXiv.org. However, to ensure the anonymity of the process, we ask that you not publish your work until after you receive the accept/reject notice. If particular aspects of your paper require earlier distribution of the preprint, please consider changing the title and abstract so that reviewers do not inadvertently discover your identity.

Submissions to the papers track are reviewed with the dual-anonymous review process. The reviewers and meta-reviewers (i.e. associate program chairs or APCs) are unaware of the author identities, and reviewers and APCs 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 and APC can examine all reviews and privately discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the work in an anonymous manner through EasyChair. Following the discussion, the APC shall draft a meta-review that holistically captures the group’s position on the paper, incorporating the views raised in the reviews and during the discussion phase.

The SIGCSE Virtual 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 (https://sigcsevirtual2026.acm.org/info/authorship-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.

ORCiD IDs

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. (If EasyChair does not request the ORCiD ID for your coauthors, you do not need to find a way to enter one.)

ACM’s New Open-Access Publishing Model

Please review details of ACM’s new open-access publishing model at https://sigcsevirtual2026.acm.org/info/information-on-acm-open.

Accepted Papers

Final camera-ready papers are due by the posted due date. As part of final paper submission, authors will need to prepare and record a 15-minute video of the paper presentation. Please follow the following recommendations and upload the video based on the directions that will be sent to authors. Authors are asked to upload both a plain video without captions and, if possible, another one with captions including scripts as indicated below. If captions need to added to a recording, the program committee will contact each author to check before publishing it on the conference streaming site.

Recording Recommendations

To record one or more presenters - Use a single stationary camera. - Use Picture-in-Picture to display both presenter and slide content. More than 3/4 of the final image should be occupied by the presentation and less than 1/4 by the camera feed. The final image can vary slightly based on slide content. - Upload the recorded videos based on the direction that sent by the program committee. - Label the recording file by title slide with date, time, and session information from the program.

File Format Recommendations

• Convert each recording to an MPEG-4 video format (.mp4 or .m4v) optimized for streaming. Use the video codec H.264 and the audio codec AAC+ or AAC MPEG4 PART 10 or AVC.
• Place the ACM logo at the opening of the video. ACM logos can be found in ACM style guide at the link: http://identitystandards.acm.org/styleguide/

Accessibility Recommendations

• Color: Use a color scheme with good contrast and avoid using colors as the only way to convey information.
• Text: Use large font sizes, such as 36-point or larger for title slides and 24-point or larger for main body texts. Avoid small text.
• Visuals: Avoid animations and visual effects that could trigger an adverse reaction, such as flashing lights, loud sounds, or repetitive alarms.
• Audio: Provide a closed caption file that captures the audio content of your presentation.
• Transcripts: Provide a text version of the speech and non-speech audio information. Descriptive transcripts are required for videos to be accessible to people who are visually and hearing impaired.

Additional Information

Authors will receive more detailed instructions about conference presentations before the conference. During the presentation time slot that will be announced in the program, authors should prepare and give a short description of the major points in the paper (90 seconds to 2 minutes). The audience will be directed to watch the pre-recorded videos before the session so that questions and answers (Q&A) can start right away. Questions and answers will be moderated by the session chair. To help out with the discussions and audience engagement, authors should include discussions with highlighted remarks by including PowerPoint slides with 5 questions attendees may wish to ask. This way, if the attendees are do not fell comfortable asking their own questions, authors can start the Q&A session by answering some or all of the pre-selected sample questions.

This page captures the reviewing policies of the papers tracks at SIGCSE Virtual. Please email the Program Chairs at program@virtual2026.sigcse.org with comments or questions.

There are three different paper types at SIGCSE Virtual: Computing Education Research (CER), Experience Reports and Tools (ERT), and Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI). When authors submit a paper, they have to select to submit to one of the three different types of papers.

• Timeline
• EasyChair
• Roles in the Review Process
• Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI)
• Review Process Steps
• Conflicts of Interest
• Recalcitrant Reviewers

Timeline

Reviewing Phase	Start Date	End Date
Bidding	Thursday, 7 May 2026	Tuesday, 12 May 2026
Reviewing	Friday, 15 May 2026	Friday, 29 May 2026
Discussion & Recommendations	Monday, 1 June 2026	Tuesday, 9 June 2026

Note: Associate Program Chair (APC) Recommendation and Meta-Review Deadline: 11:59 p.m. Wednesday, 10 June 2026 anywhere on earth (AOE)

EasyChair

The review process for SIGCSE Virtual 2026 will be done using the EasyChair submission system (https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=sigcsev2026) .

Preparing to Bid in EasyChair

Reviewers will be invited to join/log in to EasyChair. Once you have accepted your invitation, you should update your profile, select topics you are most qualified to review, and identify conflicts of interest.

Selecting topics: Select SIGCSE Virtual 2026 > Conference > My topics from the menu and select at about five topics you are most qualified to review. Please select no more than seven topics; more topics make it harder for the EasyChair system to make a good set of matches.

Conflicts of interest: Reviewers also identify their Conflicts of Interest by selecting SIGCSE Virtual 2026 > Conference > My Conflicts.

Reviewing in EasyChair

To review a paper.

Select “PC member (Paper - Experience Reports and Tools)” in the SIGCSE Virtual 2026 area

• Log in to EasyChair.
• In the EasyChair menu, select “My Recent Roles.”
• Select your PC member role in the SIGCSE Virtual 2026 area
• Select Reviews > Assigned to Me
• Click on the Adobe PDF icon that corresponds to the paper. Doing so will give you access to the paper.
• Make sure you’ve looked over the review criteria.
• Click on the “Information” link (the I in a blue circle) associated with the paper.
• Click on “Add Review” in the upper-right-hand corner
• Enter your answers in a text editor or word processor. (EasyChair times out.)
• Copy your answers over to EasyChair.

To update your review.

• Select Reviews > Assigned to Me
• Click on the appropriate link in the “Update Review” column.

You might also want to click on “Show Reviews”, where you can see other reviews and comments, update your review, and add a comment.

Roles in the Review Process

• Reviewers write reviews of their assigned submissions, evaluating them against the review criteria.
• Associate Program Chairs (APCs) write a meta-review for their assigned submissions and provide a recommendation (accept/reject) and feedback to the Program Chairs.
• Program Chairs make the final decisions on the program based on recommendations from the APCs (for papers) and from track chairs (for other tracks).

SIGCSE Virtual has three Program Chairs, each of whom serves a two-year term. Nominations for Program Chairs are solicited by the SIGCSE Virtual steering committee, which makes recommendations to the SIGCSE Board. Program Chairs are appointed by the SIGCSE board.

The Program Chairs invite and appoint the Reviewers and APCs. The number of submissions per Reviewer/APC depends on the number of volunteers and the size of the submissions pool.

The goal is for each paper submission to receive at least three reviews and a meta-review. All reviews are submitted through the submission system. In EasyChair, Reviewers are considered “Ordinary PC members,” and APCs are considered “Senior PC members”.

Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI)

Please note that we do not permit the use of LLMs and Generative AI in writing reviews. Most importantly, using AI limits the value of your review; we depend on your expertise. In addition, uploading information about a paper to an LLM violates the authors’ copyright on the work. If you normally use generative AI in your writing, please avoid doing so here; we’d rather less-perfect writing than material generated by a machine. Please refer to our policy regarding generative AI for more information.

There are three different paper types at SIGCSE Virtual: Computing Education Research (CER), Experience Reports and Tools (ERT), and Position and Curricula Initiative (PCI). Reviewers are assigned to a specific paper track (e.g., a reviewer in the CER track will only be assigned to review papers in that track). This is to avoid confusion and for reviewers to get familiar with the guidelines for their specific paper track.

All papers will be considered relative to the criteria for motivation, use of prior/related work, approach, evidence, contribution/impact, and presentation. Each track has guidance about how reviewers should consider these criteria relative to the goal of the track, and each paper must be evaluated using the criteria for the track to which it is submitted. A paper will not be moved between the three paper tracks.

The following table illustrates how to interpret the review criteria for each of the three tracks of papers. Please refer to this table to help better understand the emphases or characteristics of the track for which you will be reviewing. For convenience, you may also download a PDF copy of the paper review criteria.

Criteria	Computing Education Research (CER)	Experience Reports & Tools (ERT)	Position & Curricula Initiative (PCI)
Motivation Evaluate the submission's clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE Virtual.	The submission provides a clear motivation for the work. The submission states a set of clear Research Questions or Specific Aims/Goals.	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.	The submission provides a clear motivation for the work. Objectives or goals of the position or curricula initiative are clearly stated, and speak to issues beyond a single course or experience Submissions focused on curricula, programs, or degrees should describe the motivating context before the new initiative was undertaken. PCI papers may or may not ground the work in theory or research questions.
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.	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	Discussion of prior and related work to contextualize and motivate the position or initiative is adequate The relationship between prior work and the proposed initiative or position is clearly stated
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.	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?	The submission uses an appropriate mechanism to present and defend its stated position or curriculum proposal (this may include things like a scoping review, secondary data analysis, program evaluation, among others). As necessary, the approach used is clearly described. PCI papers leveraging a literature-driven argument need not necessarily use a systematic review format, though it may be appropriate for certain types of claims.
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. Missing or noisy data is addressed. Claims are well supported by the data presented. The threats to validity and/or study limitations are clearly stated	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.	PCI papers need not present original data collection, but may leverage other forms of scholarly evidence to support the claims made. Evidence presented is sufficient for defending the position or curriculum initiative Claims should be sufficiently scoped relative to the type of evidence presented.
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 the generalizability or transferability of findings beyond the original context. Qualitative research should add a deeper understanding of a specific context or problem For novel projects, the contribution beyond prior work is explained For replications, the contribution includes a discussion on the implications of the new results–even if null or negative e–when compared to prior work	Why the submission is of interest to the SIGCSE 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	The work presents a coherent argument about a computing education topic, including, but not limited to, curriculum or program design, practical and social issues facing computing educators, and critiques of existing practices The submission offers new insights about broader concerns to the computing education community or offers guidance for the adoption of new curricular approaches.
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	The presentation (writing, graphs, or diagrams) is clear Overall flow and organization are appropriate	The presentation (writing, graphs, or diagrams) is clear Overall flow and organization are appropriate

Review Process Steps

Step 1: Authors submit Abstracts of Papers

Authors submit a title and abstract one week prior to the full paper deadline. Authors are allowed to revise their title, abstract, and other information before the full paper submission deadline.

Step 2: Reviewers and APCs Bid for Papers

Reviewers and APCs select topics they feel most qualified to review. This helps the system prioritize papers.

Reviewers and APCs are then asked to select a set of papers for which they have sufficient expertise (we call this “bidding”). The Program Chairs assign papers based on these bids. The purpose of bidding is NOT to express interest in papers you want to read. It is to express your expertise and eligibility for fairly evaluating the work. These are subtly but importantly different purposes. We ask reviewers and APCs to select more papers than they plan to review so that we can best ensure that every paper has at least three reviewers.

• Make sure to specify all of your Conflicts of Interest.
• Bid on all of the papers you believe you have sufficient expertise to review.
• Do NOT bid on papers about topics, techniques, or methods that you oppose.

Step 3: Authors submit Full Papers

Submissions of the full papers are due one week after the abstracts are due. As indicated in the Instructions for Authors, submissions are supposed to be sufficiently anonymous so that the reviewer cannot determine the identity or affiliation of the authors. The main purpose of the anonymous reviewing process is to reduce the influence of potential (positive or negative) biases on reviewers’ assessments. You should be able to review the work without knowing the authors or their affiliations. Do not try to find out the identity of the authors. When in doubt, please contact the Program Chairs.

Step 4: Program Chairs Decide on Desk Rejects

The Program Chairs will quickly review each paper submission to determine whether it violates anonymization requirements, length restrictions, or plagiarism policies. Authors of desk-rejected papers will be notified immediately. The Program Chairs may not catch every issue. If you see something during the review process that you believe should be desk-rejected, contact the Program Chairs at program@virtual2026.sigcse.org before you write a review. The Program Chairs will make the final judgment about whether something is a violation, and give you guidance on whether and, if so, how to write a review. Note that Program Chairs with conflicts of interest are excluded from deciding on desk-rejected papers, leaving the decision to the other Program Chairs.

Step 5: Assignment

Program Chairs Assign Reviewers and APCs Based on the bids and their judgment, the Program Chairs will collaboratively assign at least three Reviewers and one APC (meta-reviewer) for each paper submission. The Program Chairs will be advised by the submission system assignment algorithm, which depends on all bids being of high quality. For the reviewer assignments to be fair and good, the reviewer bids should only be based on expertise and eligibility. Interest alone is not sufficient for bidding to review a paper. Reviewing assignments can only be made by a Program Chair without a conflict of interest.

Step 6a: Reviewers Review Papers

Assigned Reviewers submit their anonymous reviews by the review deadline, reviewing each of their assigned submissions against the Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI). We strongly recommend that you prepare your rationale in a separate document; EasyChair has been known to time out.

Note that Reviewers must NOT include accept or reject decisions in their review text. (They will indicate accept/reject recommendations separately.)

Due to the internal and external (publication) deadlines, we generally cannot give reviewers or APCs extensions. Note that reviewers, meta-reviewers, and Program Chairs with conflicts cannot see any of the reviews of the papers for which they have conflicts of interest during this process.

Step 6b: APCs and Program Chairs Monitor Review Progress

APCs and Program Chairs periodically check in to ensure that progress is being made. If needed, reminders are emailed to the reviewers with the expectations and timelines. If needed, the Program Chairs recruit emergency reviewers if any of the submissions do not have a sufficient number of reviews, if there is lots of variability in the reviews, or if an expert review is needed.

Step 7: Discussion between Reviewers and APCs

The discussion period provides the opportunity for the Reviewers and the APCs to discuss the reviews and reach an agreement on the quality of the submission relative to the expectations for the track to which it was submitted. The APCs are expected to take a leadership role and moderate the discussion. Reviewers are expected to engage in the discussion when prompted by other Reviewers and/or by the APCs by using the Comments feature of EasyChair.

During the discussion period, Reviewers are able to revise their reviews, but are NOT required to do so. It is important that at no point, Reviewers feel forced to change their reviews, scores, or viewpoints in this process. The APC can disagree with the reviewers and communicate this to the Program Chairs if needed. Everyone is asked to do the following:

• Read all the reviews of all papers assigned (and re-read your own reviews).
• Engage in a discussion about sources of disagreement.
• Use the Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI) to guide your discussions.
• Be polite, friendly, and constructive at all times.
• Be responsive and react as soon as new information comes in.
• Remain open to other reviewers shifting your judgments.
• Explicitly state any clarifying questions that could change your evaluation of the paper

At the end of the discussion period, the APCs should have enough feedback so that they can make a recommendation for acceptance or rejection to the Program Chairs. This recommendation should be based on their own reading of the reviews and discussion, not simply on the overall score.

Step 8: APCs Write Meta-Reviews

Toward the end of the discussion period, APCs use the reviews, the discussion, and their own evaluation of the submission to write a meta-review and a recommendation for the Program Chairs. A meta-review should summarize the key strengths and weaknesses of the submission, in light of the Paper Reviewing Guidelines (CER, ERT, and PCI) and explain how these led to their recommendation decision. APCs are encouraged to also include their review/feedback in the meta-review. The summary and explanation should help the authors in revising their work where appropriate. The meta-review must constructively summarize all reviews and the discussion, as well as summarize any open questions and doubts. A generic meta-review (“After long discussion, the reviewers decided that the paper is not up to standards, and therefore rejected the paper”) is not sufficient.

APCs do not include their recommendation for acceptance or rejection of a paper in their meta-review because they only see a small portion of the submitted papers. Instead, the APCs are asked to make a recommendation to accept or reject the Program Chairs via the submission system. If, however, the Reviewers had differing views and a consensus could not be reached, then the APC captures the essence of all reviews and leaves their recommendation as neutral, and the submission is then further discussed by the Program Chairs.

Recommendations should NOT be based only on scores. For example, an APC may decide to recommend rejection for a paper with three weak accepts, but recommend acceptance for a paper with two accepts and one strong reject (or vice versa)

Step 9: Program Chairs Make Decisions & Notify Authors

Before announcing decisions, the Program Chairs go through all the submissions and read all the reviews and meta-reviews to ensure clarity and consistency with the review process and its criteria as much as possible. This is done via synchronous meetings of the Program Chairs. APCs are consulted if needed. The Chairs make decisions based on recommendations and their own expertise, as well as a desire to provide an appropriately varied program.

The Program Chairs then notify all authors of the decisions about their papers via the submission system.

Step 10: Evaluation

The Evaluation Chairs send out surveys to authors, reviewers, and APCs. Please take the time to respond to these surveys, as they inform processes and policies for future SIGCSE Technical Symposia.

The Program Chairs also request feedback from the APCs on the quality of reviews as a metric to be used for future invitations to review for the SIGCSE Technical Symposium.

We will do our best to identify a small set of exceptional reviewers who will receive reviewing awards at the symposium.

Conflicts of Interest

SIGCSE Virtual takes conflicts of interest, both real and perceived, quite seriously. The conference adheres to the ACM conflict of interest policy (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/conflict-of-interest) as well as the SIGCSE conflict of interest policy (https://sigcse.org/policies/COI.html). These state that a paper submitted to the SIGCSE Virtual is a conflict of interest for an individual if at least one of the following is true:

• The individual is a co-author of the paper
• A student of the individual is a co-author of the paper
• The individual identifies the paper as a conflict of interest, i.e., that the individual does not believe that they can provide an impartial evaluation of the paper.

The following policies apply to conference organizers:

• The Program Chairs are not allowed to submit to any track.
• The chairs of any track are not allowed to submit to that specific track.
• All other conference organizers are allowed to submit to any track.
• All reviewers (PC members) and meta-reviewers (APC members) are allowed to submit to any track.

No reviewer, meta-reviewer, or chair with a conflict of interest in the paper will be included in any evaluation, discussion, or decision about the paper. It is the responsibility of the reviewers, meta-reviewers, and chairs to declare their conflicts of interest throughout the process. The corresponding actions are outlined below for each relevant step of the reviewing process. It is the responsibility of the chairs to ensure that no reviewer or meta-reviewer is assigned a role in the review process for any paper for which they have a conflict of interest.

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.

These are some of the more common questions (and categories of questions) the Program Chairs have received. Please look over these questions in advance of reviewing. If you have a question not covered here (or even if you have a question about the questions covered here), please reach out to the program chairs at program@virtual2026.sigcse.org.

Anonymity

General principle: We expect authors to make a good-faith effort to make their papers anonymous. We will not reject papers because it is possible, with some sleuthing, to discover their authors. If you do discover the authors’ identities, do your best to ignore them.

I was looking up aspects of this paper on the Web and found a copy of the paper on ArXiV (or other online archive) with the authors’ names listed. Does this break anonymity?

No. ACM Policy indicates that authors may submit works under review to online archives.

I see the name “Trovato” in the header of the document. Is this the name of one of the authors, thereby breaking anonymity?

No. “Trovato” is one of the default names in the ACM LaTeX template. You can feel free to ignore the name.

The name of the institution is mentioned in the text of the paper. Does this break anonymity?

Yes. Do your best to review the paper as if you did not know the authors and include a confidential comment in your review indicating this issue.

The name of the project is mentioned in the text of the paper. When I searched for the project on the Web so that I could better understand it, I discovered who the authors were.

Ideally, the authors should have anonymized the name of the project. Do your best to review the paper as if you did not know the authors and include a confidential comment in your review indicating this issue.

Human Subject Protection

General principle: We expect members of our community to follow high standards for the protection of human subjects. In particular, all authors submitting to SIGCSE TS are responsible for adhering to the ACM Publications Policy on Research Involving Human Participants and Subjects.

However, different countries and different institutions have different policies or interpretations of policies. For example, US policies recently changed to exempt normal classroom activities as long as they do not affect student learning. Different institutions have interpreted that exemption in multiple ways and have different processes for obtaining that exemption.

In general, reviewers should assume that authors are telling the truth when they indicate that a study is exempt from review by the local IRB/ethics board. Nonetheless, if a reviewer has any concern about human subjects protection in a study, they should reach out to their APC and the Program Chairs.

The paper includes a study of students but indicates that “the work does not directly involve human participants”. Is that okay?

A study that involves students might be exempt from review, but it does involve human participants. Please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs so that we can clarify this issue. Then review the paper as if the work is acceptable.

The authors note that the project is exempt from review, but I have trouble believing that. It certainly wouldn’t be at my institution.

Policies vary between countries ,and their interpretation varies between institutions. Nonetheless, if you are worried, please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs so that we can clarify this issue. Then review the paper as if the work is acceptable.

I am concerned that this study could cause harm to the participants.

Please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs.

Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism

I am concerned that this paper is too close to another paper I have seen (or am reviewing).

Please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs so that we can explore the issue. Then review the paper as if the work is acceptable. Note that authors can (confidentially) tell the Program Chairs about potential overlaps between papers, and it is the Program Chairs’ responsibility to determine whether such overlaps are acceptable.

The running header for this paper appears to be for an earlier iteration of the SIGCSE Technical Symposium. I am concerned that this work may be recycled.

Authors are certainly permitted to update and resubmit papers that were not accepted. Authors have also been known to reuse prior submissions as a template. In some such cases, they neglect to update the header. We find that these are the most common reasons we see headers that indicate a prior conference. However, if you are concerned that the content is recycled from an accepted paper, please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs.

Generative AI

Projects involving generative AI

The authors built a system using data that they did not generate. They do not seem to have obtained permission to do so. What should I do?

SIGCSE TS requires that authors obtain permission to use other people’s data and to explicitly indicate this in the acknowledgments section. Please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs so that we can clarify this issue. Then review the paper as if the work is acceptable.

Authors’ use of generative AI

I believe that the authors used ChatGPT, Google Translate, or another tool in writing this paper. However, they have not acknowledged this use.

ACM policy permits authors to use generative AI tools but requires that they acknowledge the use of such tools. Please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs so that we can clarify this issue. Then review the paper as if the work is acceptable. You may also indicate your concerns in the review, but please clarify that your concerns did not affect your overall rating (unless the tools led to poor writing).

I am worried that some of the references are fake, perhaps generated by a tool.

Please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs ASAP. Then review the paper as if the work is acceptable.

Reviewers’ use of generative AI

Please refer to the general AI policies for some background.

May I use ChatGPT or other Generative AI tools to write my reviews?

No. It is a violation of ACM policies to feed the authors’ text into an online tool.

Can I use the Google “Help Me Write” tool, Microsoft writing tools, Grammarly, or other similar software?

Yes.

I’m worried that some text in this paper plagiarizes text from elsewhere. May I use TurnItIn or similar software to check?

No. If you have such concerns, please reach out to your APC and the Program Chairs.

Track choice

This paper was submitted to XXX, but I think it belongs in YYY.

We do not switch papers between tracks. Please review the paper according to the criteria of the track the authors selected. You may certainly raise your concern about the choice of track during the discussion, and you can also include a comment in the confidential notes to the Program Chairs.

Concerns about other reviewers

I think another reviewer’s comments are overly harsh.

Please mention that during the discussion. (Please be polite in doing so.) If the other reviewer does not respond, reach out to the APC.

I think another reviewer’s reviews were generated by ChatGPT or another tool.

Please reach out to your APC or the Program Chairs. Do not accuse another reviewer directly.

I am concerned that another reviewer’s comments are inappropriate.

If you are comfortable doing so, please mention that during the discussion. If not, please reach out to the APC or the Program Chairs, who can then raise the issue with the other reviewer.

The approximate text from the review form follows.

Note that not all reviewer responses are available to authors.

Common Introductory Fields

Summary: Please provide a brief summary of the submission, its audience, and its main point(s), with respect to the review criteria of this track. Refer to the Table on the SIGCSE Virtual 2026 website (i.e., Instructions for Reviewers) to familiarize yourself with the review criteria for the appropriate track: (1) Computing Education Research, (2) Experience Reports and Tools, and (3) Position and Curricula Initiatives.

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

• None - I have never reviewed or written a paper or otherwise have experience in this area
• Low - I have read papers or otherwise have slight experience in this area
• Medium - I have reviewed papers or otherwise have some experience in this area
• High - I have written and reviewed papers or otherwise have moderate experience in this area
• Expert - I have written and reviewed many papers, or otherwise have extensive experience in this area

Computing Education Research

Motivation (CER): Evaluate the submission’s clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE Virtual.

• 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 (CER): 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 (CER): 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 (CER): 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.
• Missing or noisy data is addressed.
• Claims are well supported by the data presented.
• The threats to validity and/or study limitations are clearly stated.

Contribution & Impact (CER): 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 the generalizability or transferability of findings beyond the original context.
• Qualitative research should add a deeper understanding of a specific context or problem.
• For novel projects, the contribution beyond prior work is explained.
• For replications, the contribution includes a discussion on the implications of the new results–even if null or negative–when compared to prior work.

Presentation (CER): Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.

• The presentation (e.g., writing, grammar, graphs, diagrams) is clear.
• Overall flow and organization are appropriate.

Experience Reports and Tools

Motivation (ERT) Evaluate the submission’s clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE Virtual.

• 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 (ERT) 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 (ERT): 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 (ERT): 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.
• ERT papers may include small-scale studies, but they need not be statistically significant.
• Claims about the experience or tool are sufficiently scoped within the bounds of the evidence presented.

Contribution & Impact (ERT): Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.

• Why the submission is of interest to the SIGCSE 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 (ERT): Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.

• The presentation (e.g., writing, grammar, graphs, diagrams) is clear.
• Overall flow and organization are appropriate.

Position Papers and Curricular Initiatives

Motivation (PCI): Evaluate the submission’s clarity of purpose and alignment with the scope of the SIGCSE Virtual.

• The submission provides a clear motivation for the work.
• Objectives or goals of the position or curricula initiative are clearly stated, and speak to issues beyond a single course or experience.
• Submissions focused on curricula, programs, or degrees should describe the motivating context before the new initiative was undertaken.
• PCI papers may or may not ground the work in theory or research questions.

Prior and Related Work (PCI): 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 position or initiative is adequate.
• The relationship between prior work and the proposed initiative or position is clearly stated.

Approach (PCI): Evaluate the transparency and soundness of the approach used in the submission relative to its goals.

• The submission uses an appropriate mechanism to present and defend its stated position or curriculum proposal (this may include things like a scoping review, secondary data analysis, program evaluation, among others).
• As necessary, the approach used is clearly described.
• PCI papers leveraging a literature-driven argument need not necessarily use a systematic review format, though it may be appropriate for certain types of claims.

Evidence (PCI): Evaluate the extent to which the submission provides adequate evidence to support its claims.

• PCI papers need not present original data collection, but may leverage other forms of scholarly evidence to support the claims made.
• Evidence presented is sufficient for defending the position or curriculum initiative.
• Claims should be sufficiently scoped relative to the type of evidence presented.

Contribution & Impact (PCI) Evaluate the overall contribution to computing education made by this submission.

• The work presents a coherent argument about a computing education topic, including, but not limited to, curriculum or program design, practical and social issues facing computing educators, and critiques of existing practices.
• The submission offers new insights about broader concerns to the computing education community or offers guidance for the adoption of new curricular approaches.

Presentation (PCI): Evaluate the writing quality with respect to expectations for publication, allowing for only minor revisions prior to final submission.

• The presentation (e.g., writing, grammar, graphs, diagrams) is clear.
• Overall flow and organization are appropriate.

Common Text: Recommendation

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.