add guide for new PCs

rr/README.md

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ See the main [journal website](https://emsejournal.github.io/registered_reports/
 
 Read the journal [policies](rr_policies.md).
 
+Read the [guide for new PC chairs](pc_chair_guide.md).
+
 Reuse previous Calls for Phase 1 Submissions:
 - International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME 2020) [guide](icsme_rr_guide.md) and [CFP](registered-reports_ICSME_CFP.md).
 - International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR2020) [CFP](registered-reports_MSR_CFP.md). 

rr/pc_chair_guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# So You've Become The RR Track Chair ...
+
+Things run a bit differently in Registered Report tracks that want to provide EMSE Journal in principle acceptances (IPA). In a typical track, with the guidance of the GC and technical PC chairs, you and co-chairs have a lot of autonomy on how to run things. 
+
+In RR tracks, while the guidance of the other organizers is important, we add this second phase with the EMSE Journal. This means the RR chairs have to 
+1. manage the conference submission and review process, and any conference activities (camera-ready deadlines, program scheduling)
+2. track the ongoing and in progress studies
+3. act as point of contact for authors, and explain to authors how to submit the Phase 2 report/paper and
+4. assign reviewers and manage the journal reviews and decision (via Springer's Editorial Manager)
+
+## Background on RR
+You can read about motivation and process [in a paper we wrote](https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03649v1). 
+
+## Journal Policies and Process
+EMSE Journal has [official policies](https://github.com/emsejournal/openscience/blob/master/rr/rr_policies.md) on RR. 
+
+Please contact Neil and Teresa (the journal RR editors) before making any major changes or policy decisions on the RR process. 
+
+## Balancing constraints: 
+- EMSE and conference quality should be paramount. We don't want to accept, even provisionally, papers that don't have the ability to make an excellent contribution to the journal and conference.
+- Author benefits: the RR track offers two main benefits. One is the immediate feedback on the research protocol. This is independent of the review process outcomes, and so *even rejected papers get this benefit*. Don't discount this! 
+- The second is the "in principle acceptance" to EMSE. We read this as equivalent to an expectation of **only minor revisions** at the second phase (and possibly "minor editorial"). IPA should NOT be granted to papers that will likely require major revisions. This undermines the benefit of RR. 
+- Editor/PC chair workload: as with all service, you do this as extra work. Think carefully about how much workload you may impose on yourselves in tracking down extra reviewers, vetting changes to papers, extending deadlines, managing author changes, etc. Our advice is to only accept the strongest IPA papers. 
+
+## Calls for Papers
+There are several excellent CFPs to draw on. See [here](https://github.com/emsejournal/openscience/blob/master/rr/registered-reports_ICSME_CFP.md). There is also the excellent Peer Community in RR [guides for authors](https://rr.peercommunityin.org/help/guide_for_authors) and [reviewers](https://rr.peercommunityin.org/help/guide_for_reviewers) to work through. 
+
+## Next steps
+After the conference concludes:
+- ensure the accepted Phase 1 plans are on OSF or Arxiv, as you choose. Consider offering an embargo option for sensitive or scoopable approaches.
+- add your accepted IPAs to the [Google spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10zCgcfwjh0FCPqdanPFDIj-mO10Hmp8JAG9VbRQAfng/edit#gid=1193956275) for tracking.
+- by the deadline, ensure authors have submitted the second phase study to EMSE as a "RR" special issue (a choice in the Editorial Manager tool). In the conference acceptance, you will want to include instructions for the cover letter, which should remind reviewers about the initial protocol, the location of the study plan, and the list of **minor deviations** which might have occurred.
+
+See templates below for more suggestions.
+
+## Open Issues 
+
+### Reviewer continuity and conflicts
+- The trick is to balance reviewer expertise in the topic and methods used, alongside reviewer continuity. Ideally the reviewers give high quality feedback and are ready to review the eventual study results. You should ensure your invites explain the 2 phase procoess and the importance of reviewer continuity. 
+- 4 reviewers is a good idea in Phase 1; this helps with unexpected dropouts.
+- See the authorship guidelines; in particular, reviewers cannot subsequently become authors. 
+
+### Managing reviews
+- In a year, when Phase 2 studies get submitted to Springer, you will need to determine who the original reviewers were, and invite them via the Springer tool. Creating a *private* spreadsheet to track this (along with decisions) is helpful.
+- In some cases 2 reviewers vote for phase 1 acceptance and 1 against. Often in the typical conference setting this results in a "0.7" score on EasyChair and gets accepted. But we suggest carefully seeing what "reviewer 2" is objecting to. Will their concerns kill the subsequent paper? Can they be fixed in the subsequent study? It is more useful for all parties if 
+
+### Exploratory vs confirmatory
+See the write up in the RR paper here. The main issue is what to do with an exploratory or qualitative study, where the protocol often cannot be clearly defined until data collection begins (which in the confirmatory case may lead to QRPs). 
+
+Some chairs have offered "Continuity Acceptance"; this means the proposed RR gets accepted to teh conference, but there is no in principle acceptance. This has the benefit of expanding the program to different styles of research. But it has the downside of a longer review timeline, since the authors must now do the study and then get journal reviews. 
+
+Since in any case authors are always free to submit to the EMSE Journal, rejection at the Phase 1 level is not a major hurdle to their research programme. We suggest being conservative in the use of CA. 
+
+# Other Resources
+- contact Neil Ernst or Maria-Teresa Baldassarre for more help or advice.
+- [phase 1 reviewer invite template](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10zCgcfwjh0FCPqdanPFDIj-mO10Hmp8JAG9VbRQAfng/edit#gid=1193956275)
+- [phase 2 reviewer re-invite template](https://docs.google.com/document/d/18MTyXKIsVfmSvd-xMZ1s6wj9Bzb0rifvlcUOvRcLmLc/edit?usp=sharing)
+- [author notification templates](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g3zwSZkKOP-R1XYv-x26gughdlB0vC41_B1tDA41ZH4/edit?usp=share_link)