Statement of Peer Review

In submitting conference proceedings to Proceedings, the volume editors of the proceedings certify to the publisher that all papers published in this volume have been subjected to peer review administered by the volume editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal.

• Type of peer review: workshop abstracts: single-blind; proceedings papers: double-blind;
• Conference submission management system: EasyChair;
• Number of submissions sent for review: 23;
• Number of submissions accepted: 8;
• Acceptance rate (number of submissions accepted/number of submissions received): 35%;
• Average number of reviews per paper: 3;
• Total number of reviewers involved: 14;
• Description of the process of peer review and/or editorial oversight of all accepted content (e.g., detailed criteria or policy of peer-review, etc.)

Three hundred-word abstracts were submitted to EasyChair and ranked on a scale from -3 to 3 based on criteria which were designed by the organizing committee to identify papers that (a) described a specific implementation of generative AI activities and (b) provided evidence of the impact of these activities on the student and/or teaching experience. Abstracts ranked highly satisfied both criteria and were accepted to the workshop, and high reliability was observed across reviewers.

For the workshop proceedings, authors were invited to contribute a full-length paper based on their presentation at the workshop. Each paper was sent to two reviewers, who provided detailed comments addressed by the authors.