1. Each advocate contributes to the conference quality, helping it achieve its objective of ranking papers based on their overall quality.
  2. The advocates draws on the comments of the expert reviewers and on the applicants’ responses to the reviewers’ comments. The advocate does not review proposals; advocates are appointed to represent the collective views of the expert reviewers and to bring the benefits of their general experience in science and engineering research.
  3. Advocates are asked to take a broad view, which covers the breadth of research included within the conference remit.
  4. In effect, the advocate is responsible for ensuring good quality reviews and rebuttals and should advise the Programme Chair as to the papers suitability for acceptance based on the discussion (that the advocate may initiate) between the reviewers.
  5. See Mark Bernstein’s excellent ‘Reviewing Conference Papers’ for how to review and why it needs to be a high quality activity. In addition, you should familiarise yourself with our submission policy so that you can understand the quality of review we require.
  6. The W4A is vital, active, and of high quality only through your volunteerism and participation. Thank you again for your help.