This contains the most important information for you as a reviewer, including what questions to consider, what to include in a review, and an example review.
Reviews are an essential part of feedback to submitters. The central, guiding question for all reviews is this: Does this submission present an original, important, inspiring and useful enhancement to NIME community knowledge?
With this question in mind, here’s a guide to writing a NIME review.
Please carefully watch and listen to the submitted/linked media examples.
It seems self-explanatory, but it’s important to read the submission PDF accompanying the media examples, in its entirety. Some works require contextualization to be properly evaluated, and the document is expected to explain the concept and thoughts behind the work, the technologies used, and its connection to NIME research. It should also describe the technical setup.
Some useful questions to ask yourself:
- What’s the central idea of the work? Is it clear?
- What is the relevance, connection and contribution to NIME research of the work, and how does it contribute to the NIME discourse?
- What is the artistic quality of the work? Artistic quality is of course a very complex concept, but you may consider aspects such as concept, implementation, authenticity, novelty, virtuosity, originality, craft, effort, legacy, relevance, and engagement.
- If the performance involves technology, concepts or instruments that have previously been presented in some form at NIME, what new knowledge, insights or perspectives on aesthetics, technology or musicianship do the new contribution bring?
- Is the work feasible for a performance at NIME, both in terms of the authors being able to carry it out, and from a production perspective? Is it resourceful, i.e., is the weight of the contribution in balance with the resources required?
In recent years the topic of bias has come to the forefront in peer review, and NIME of course is not immune to the effects of conscious and unconscious bias.
While this document can’t give prescriptive guidelines on how to avoid bias, please keep in mind that we all have our own expectations of NIME work that is “good”, “interesting”, “useful”, and “relevant”. However, NIME is an enormous and diverse community that lies across divergent research disciplines and across different artistic genres and styles, and from a variety of cultural contexts. You may encounter submissions that you don’t personally find interesting or relevant. In this case, please try to look at artistic quality regardless of style or genre. We encourage all reviewers to keep in mind that our judgement should be based on enhancing diversity and community knowledge. For example, bringing genres, styles, subcultures or perspectives that have hitherto been underrepresented or lacking at NIME may be a value to consider on its own.
Reviews are an important way to offer the author feedback on their work - telling them what was positive, what could use improvement, and how you see this work as contributing to community knowledge and the performance culture of the NIME community.
These are the goals when reviewing music and installation submissions:
- To point out the strengths of the submission
- To identify possible weaknesses of the submission
- To offer feedback on what would improve the submission
- To offer a perspective on whether the submission makes a valid, meaningful contribution to the artistic program of the NIME conference and to the performance culture, our field of knowledge, and if it could be an inspiration to others within the community.
- To give an indication of the atmosphere and requirements for the piece or art-installation. a. A description of a location in which the submission will thrive. b. An indication of the need for spatial audio, video or other special technical requirements.
Please note: The goal of reviews is not to eliminate works from consideration. Rather, it is to help identify the works that offer important contributions to diversity, community knowledge, and to the cultural program of the conference.
Writing a few sentences summarising the work is a great way to start. It demonstrates to the author that you have perused the submitted media and read the submission description document and formed an adequate view of the work.
Every work, no matter how lacking, has positive aspects.
Summarise any negative aspects, and suggest ways that these might be improved for the future.
Finally, state your recommendation (Accept, Maybe Accept, Maybe Reject, or Reject). Clearly state why you are making this recommendation.
Below is an example of a useful review.
This particular performance unveils an artist employing hand gestures in the presence of a webcam, skillfully utilizing these gestures to manipulate their vocal delivery through a spectrum of sound-processing techniques. Originating from the artist themselves, the composition falls under the indie-pop genre.
In the realm of NIME contributions, this submission stands out for its compelling artistic merit. The employed gestures, though seemingly straightforward, possess a simplicity that intertwines seamlessly with the vocal nuances and textual significance. The reviewer contends that this amalgamation is undeniably distinctive, rendering the performance artistically unparalleled and thoroughly engrossing.
While the technological aspect of this submission may not break new ground, the utilization of gestures in this specific performance aligns musically with the caliber of Imogen Heap's application of the Mi.Mu gloves. It serves as a noteworthy illustration of a cost-effective alternative for vocalists keen on incorporating expressive live-electronics within the mainstream pop milieu.
This submission, currently lasting only three minutes, suggests the possibility of either extending its duration to double the length or, preferably, appending another equally brief second song. This addition would serve to demonstrate additional techniques within the same stylistic framework. While lacking groundbreaking innovation from a technical standpoint, these contributions possess the capacity to ignite interest in NIME within a broader audience, introducing a novel and aspirational dimension to the field through their distinctive artistic approach. I propose to accept this contribution.
Practical considerations:
Suitable for both an official concert stage and a more casual club setting during the early evening, this submission requires no special considerations regarding video production and spatialization. Its adaptability makes it a versatile candidate for various performance environments.
The NIME review process is double-blind. This means that the authors don’t know who the reviewers are, and reviewers should ideally not know who the submitters are. That said, we acknowledge that it is often impossible to completely anonymise music submissions without negatively influencing their contents, due to, e.g., performers appearing in video documentation.
We expect submitters to be careful in their anonymization but without compromising the quality of the submitted material.
When you volunteer for reviewing you are asked to state your conflicts of interest, meaning people that you work closely with now, or those you’ve worked closely with in the past. Though we aim to avoid assigning reviews with which a reviewer can have a conflict, it can happen. If this happens, email the music chair, preferably through CMT. You might still be able to review the submission, but ultimately this decision will be up to the meta-reviewer.
Though we try to match the specialisation of reviewers to the submissions, you might get a review related to a genre, style or technology that you are not familiar with, or do not feel comfortable evaluating.
Here good reviews are essential! A summary of the submission, what you understand from it as someone without expertise in this area, and what you see as strengths and weaknesses that can be useful and provide important feedback to the submitter.
If you are really not comfortable reviewing it, please contact the music chairs.
There’s no minimum or maximum length for reviews, but reviews have a recommended structure: It should describe the submission’s main concepts, state the positive and negative aspects in relation to the criteria listed above, and offer a recommendation for acceptance with a well-articulated reasoning for that recommendation.
Typically, this is 200-500 words.
Yes! Submitters depend on feedback, and explaining why you thought something was great is as important as a less positive critique.
Just as importantly, your review is important to the music chairs, who will be making a final recommendation. They are keenly interested in your feedback and perspective, and this helps them make acceptance decisions that include a wide range of perspectives.
We ask that reviewers focus on the_content_of theperformance/installation. Music-chairs will make the call about whether the documentation is a factor- though please highlight your findings.
Submissions are rejected at the beginning of the process (known as a “desk reject”) for the following reasons:
- The authors names are visible (ie, the submission documentation is not anonymised)
- The submission is not submitted in English
- The submission is obviously not complete (e.g. no expected media or documentation)
These are the only situations in which there can be a desk rejection. Otherwise, the submission goes to review. Such decisions are taken by the music chairs, but they will be grateful for your help in identifying any potential problems.
Since NIME is dependent on reviews to select the proceedings, we ask you to please, please submit your reviews if you have committed to reviewing for this year’s NIME.
If for some reason reviewing is impossible, please tell the music chairs as soon as possible so another reviewer can be found.