Peer review is a core feature of the quality control and acceptance for papers/music at the NIME conference. This has up until now been done once a year (typically in February-April). All submissions are reviewed by 2-3 community members, and in recent years there have also been meta-reviewers involved in helping the chairs making their final decisions.
While the current peer review system has served us well for many years, it would also be interesting to consider whether we should think differently about the review process. Perhaps it would be better to have a rolling submission process, followed by an open, continuous peer feedback? This could then be the basis for the final peer review and selection for the conference.
The experiences with the Slack channels during NIME 2020 showed that the Q&A sessions were very useful. Many presenters probably felt that they could have improved their submission based on that feedback. So perhaps we should open for a two-step submission system, where those who want can resubmit their papers after the conference?
Together, these two steps (pre-conference peer feedback and post-conference revision) could improve the final publications coming out of the conference series?