Check proposal, reviewer and score files before a program committee meets: scores from reviewers who share an organization, an email domain or a copresenter listing with a proposal are set aside, proposals with too few eligible reviews or reviewers far apart are flagged, reviewers who score high, low or the same every time are marked, and proposals are ranked with ties sharing a rank. The sample files are synthetic. Serve this folder (see README.md) instead of double-clicking the page, so the samples can load.
Your files never leave this tab. This page reads the files you give it and applies the checks below. It uploads nothing, stores nothing and deletes nothing. It reads up to 1 MB per file, 1,000 proposals, 500 reviewers and 20,000 score rows, and it shows no name, title or email column. A flag is a prompt for a person, and a proposal that is not flagged is not proven sound. Reload the page to forget the files.
Your files
Each file needs a first row with these column names. Other columns are ignored and never shown. Proposals: proposal_id, submitter_org, submitter_email, copresenters. Reviewers: reviewer_id, org, email. Scores: proposal_id, reviewer_id, score. Separate several copresenter ids with semicolons.
Limits you choose
Every starting number is an example, not a standard. The upper and lower band edges echo one association's guidance to its own chairs on its own five-point scale, and that association says it has no cut-off score. The minimum of three reviews echoes the same association's design. The split range, the distance from the pool mean, the flat-reviewer rule and the free-mail list are house choices with no cited source. Replace each one with what your committee adopts.