Main Page

From Health of Conferences Committee

Revision as of 15:58, 23 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 22:40, 24 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) 10. Next diff →
Line 61:		Line 61:
	===10.===		===10.===
-	[[Talk:Discussion 10]]	+	[[Talk:Discussion 10test]]
-		+
-		+
	==Question Results==		==Question Results==

---

Revision as of 22:40, 24 February 2006

Contents 1 Health of Conferences Committee 1.1 Members 2 Survey Results 2.1 Introduction 3 Top 10 best conference ideas 3.1 1. 3.2 2. 3.3 3. 3.4 4. 3.5 5. 3.6 6. 3.7 7. 3.8 8. 3.9 9. 3.10 10. 4 Question Results

Health of Conferences Committee

Members

---

Mark D. Hill

University of Wisconsin

Jean-Luc Gaudiot

UC Irvine

Mary Hall

USC/ISI

Joe Marks

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.

Talk:Discussion 1

2.

Talk:Discussion 2

3.

Talk:Discussion 3

4.

Talk:Discussion 4

5.

Talk:Discussion 5

6.

Talk:Discussion 6

7.

Talk:Discussion 7

8.

Talk:Discussion 8

9.

Talk:Discussion 9

10.

Talk:Discussion 10test

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.

Q1: Large Conferences

Q1: Medium Conferences

Q1: Small Conferences

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.

Q2: Large Conferences

Q2: Medium Conferences

Q2: Small Conferences

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?

Q3: Large Conferences

Q3: Medium Conferences

Q3: Small Conferences

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?

Q4: Large Conferences

Q4: Medium Conferences

Q4: Small Conferences

Question 5: CATCH-ALL. Are there other approaches your community has tried or abandoned that the rest of us can learn from?

Q5: Large Conferences

Q5: Medium Conferences

Q5: Small Conferences

Please see documentation on customizing the interface + Health of Conferences Committee - and the User's Guide for usage and configuration help.

---

---