Search keywords

Basics

 
all submissions in the search category
 
“story” in title, abstract, authors
Search uses fields visible to the searcher. For example, PC member searches do not examine authors.
 
submission #119
 
submissions in the numbered set with “kernel” in title, abstract, authors
 
“802” in title, abstract, authors (not submission #802)
 
“very” and “new” in title, abstract, authors
 
the same
 
the phrase “very new” in title, abstract, authors
 
either “very” or “new” in title, abstract, authors
 
use parentheses to group
 
“very” but not “new” in title, abstract, authors
 
the same
 
words that start with “ve” in title, abstract, authors
 
words that contain “me” in title, abstract, authors

Title

 
title contains “flexible”

Abstract

 
abstract contains “very novel”

Authors

 
author list contains “poletto”
 
more than four authors

Collaborators

 
collaborators contains “liskov”

Topics

 
selected topics match “link”

Submission fields

 
submission’s Artifact URL field is set
Also has:HarDep, has:SofDep, has:DatDep, has:KeyResTo, has:ExpComTim, has:EstCos
 
submission’s Artifact URL field contains ‘words’
Also HarDep:text, SofDep:text, DatDep:text, KeyResTo:text, ExpComTim:text, EstCos:text

Tags

 
tagged “discuss” (“tag:discuss” also works)
 
not tagged “discuss”
 
tagged “discuss”, sort by tag order (“rorder:” for reverse order)
 
matches any tag that starts with “disc”

Reviews

 
you are a reviewer
 
“fdabek” in reviewer name/email
 
four reviewers (assigned and/or completed)
 
less than three completed reviews
Use “cre:<3” for short.
 
at least one incomplete review
 
at least one in-progress review (started, but not completed)
 
at least two primary reviewers
 
at least one secondary reviewer
 
at least one external reviewer
 
“fdabek” has completed a primary review
 
has a review with less than 100 words in author-visible fields
 
has a positively-rated review (“rate:bad”, “rate:biased”, etc. also work)
 
has a positively-rated review by you

Review fields

 
at least one completed review has a nonempty Reviewer Expertise field
Also ArtPubAva:any, ArtFun:any, KeyResRep.1:any, DisArtNom:any, ComAut:any, ComPC:any
 
at least one completed review has Reviewer Expertise 3
Also ArtPubAva:value, ArtFun:value, KeyResRep.1:value, DisArtNom:value
 
at least one completed review has Reviewer Expertise greater than 3
Also ArtFun:comparison, KeyResRep.1:comparison
 
at least one completed review has Reviewer Expertise in the 2–4 range
Also ArtFun:any:v1-v2, KeyResRep.1:any:v1-v2
 
all completed reviews have Reviewer Expertise in the 2–4 range
 
Reviewer Expertise in completed reviews spans the 2–4 range
This means all scores between 2 and 4, with at least one 2 and at least one 4.
 
at least 4 completed reviews have Reviewer Expertise 3
 
exactly 2 completed reviews have Reviewer Expertise 3
 
at least one completed review has “finger” in the Comments for author field
 
at least one completed review has an empty Comments for author field
Also ComPC:empty

Comments

 
at least one visible reviewer comment (not including authors’ response)
 
at least three visible reviewer comments
 
at least one reviewer comment visible to authors
 
“sylvia” (in name/email) wrote at least one visible comment; can combine with counts, use reviewer tags
 
has author’s response
 
at least two visible comments, possibly including author’s response

Leads

 
“fdabek” (in name/email) is discussion lead
 
no assigned discussion lead
 
some assigned discussion lead

Shepherds

 
“fdabek” (in name/email) is shepherd (“none” and “any” also work)

Conflicts

 
you have a conflict with the submission
 
“fdabek” (in name/email) has a conflict with the submission
This search is only available to chairs and to PC members who can see the submission’s author list.
 
some PC member has a conflict with the submission
 
at least three PC members have conflicts with the submission
 
a reviewer of submission 1, 2, or 3 has a conflict with the submission

Preferences

 
you have preference 3
 
a PC member’s preference has expertise “X” (expert)
 
“fdabek” (in name/email) has preference > 0
Administrators can search preferences by name; PC members can only search preferences for the PC as a whole.

Status

 
submission is ready for review
 
submission is incomplete (neither ready nor withdrawn)
 
submission has been withdrawn
 
final version uploaded

Decisions

 
decision is “Accepted” (partial matches OK)
 
one of the accept decisions
 
one of the reject decisions
 
decision specified
 
decision unspecified

Formulas

 
all reviews have Reviewer Expertise score 3
Formulas can express complex numerical queries across review scores and preferences.
 
“f” is shorthand for “formula”
 
variance in RevExp is above 0.5
 
at least one reviewer had Reviewer Expertise score 3 and review preference < 0

Display

 
show tags and PC conflicts in the results
 
hide title in the results
 
show a formula
 
sort by score
 
sort by score variance
 
sort by reverse status
 
edit the values for tag “#discuss”
 
like “search1 OR search2”, but submissions matching “search1” are grouped together and appear earlier in the sorting order
 
faceted display
 
search for “search1”, but highlight submissions in that list that match “search2” (also try HIGHLIGHT:pink, HIGHLIGHT:green, HIGHLIGHT:blue)