Main Page
From Health of Conferences Committee
| Revision as of 15:53, 23 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 15:54, 23 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| ===Introduction=== | ===Introduction=== | ||
| http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/acm_ieee_heath_conf_2006_02.ppt | http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/acm_ieee_heath_conf_2006_02.ppt | ||
| - | |||
Revision as of 15:54, 23 February 2006
Contents |
Health of Conferences Committee
Members
- University of Wisconsin
- UC Irvine
- USC/ISI
- Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs]
Paolo Prinetto
- Politecnico di Torino
Donna Baglio
- ACM Headquarters
Survey Results
Introduction
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/acm_ieee_heath_conf_2006_02.ppt
Top 10 best conference ideas
We encourage an open debate on each of these ten ideas. In order to do this, follow the links below and click the + sign in the discussion area. You are then able to enter a discussion topic title and text. To reply to a specific discusion please put "Re" in front of the original topic title.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Question Results
Question 1: REVIEWER LOAD. Has your community recently adopted new practices to deal with growing reviewer load, such as:
- tracking reviews of rejected papers from conference to conference as is done in journal reviewing
- increasing program committee size
- charging a review fee
- others?
For each practice you are using, what is your view of how well it is working within your community? Please comment on the merit of the other strategies as applies to your community.
Question 2: NON-INCREMENTAL
Has your community recently adopted new practices to promote non-incremental new ideas?
- big ideas sessions
- more papers
- shorter papers
- deemphasizing detailed evaluation
- others?
For each practice you are using, what is your view of how well it is working within your community? Please comment on the merit of the other strategies as applies to your community.
Question 3: PROGRAM COMMITTEES
Does your community practice:
- double blind submissions
- program committee submission restrictions
- rebuttals (author responses)
- large program committees
- program subcommittees
- others?
Do these practices seem to help or hurt promoting your field?
Question 4: WORKSHOPS, ETC.
Does your community provide venue for work not mature
enough for your major conferences, such as:
- workshop co-located at conferences
- stand-alone workshops
- panels
- crazy idea sessions
On balance, are these other venues effect for advancing your field? What mechanisms, if any, do you use allow good papers from these venues to later achieve wider dissemination?
Question 5: CATCH-ALL. Are there other approaches your community has tried or abandoned that the rest of us can learn from?
Please see documentation on customizing the interface + Health of Conferences Committee
- and the User's Guide for usage and configuration help.
