Main Page
From Health of Conferences Committee
| Revision as of 19:24, 20 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 19:28, 20 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Question Results Next diff → |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Has your community recently adopted new practices to deal with growing reviewer load, such as: | 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 | + | *tracking reviews of rejected papers from conference to conference as is done in journal reviewing |
| - | • increasing program committee size | + | *increasing program committee size |
| - | • charging a review fee | + | *charging a review fee |
| - | • others? | + | *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. | 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. | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| Has your community recently adopted new practices to promote non-incremental new ideas? | Has your community recently adopted new practices to promote non-incremental new ideas? | ||
| - | • big ideas sessions | + | *big ideas sessions |
| - | • more papers | + | *more papers |
| - | • shorter papers | + | *shorter papers |
| - | • deemphasizing detailed evaluation | + | *deemphasizing detailed evaluation |
| - | • others? | + | *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. | 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. | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| Question 3: PROGRAM COMMITTEES | Question 3: PROGRAM COMMITTEES | ||
| Does your community practice: | Does your community practice: | ||
| - | • double blind submissions | + | *double blind submissions |
| - | • program committee submission restrictions | + | *program committee submission restrictions |
| - | • rebuttals (author responses) | + | *rebuttals (author responses) |
| - | • large program committees | + | *large program committees |
| - | • program subcommittees | + | *program subcommittees |
| - | • others? | + | *others? |
| Do these practices seem to help or hurt promoting your field? | Do these practices seem to help or hurt promoting your field? | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| enough for your major conferences, such as: | enough for your major conferences, such as: | ||
| - | • workshop co-located at conferences | + | *workshop co-located at conferences |
| - | • stand-alone workshops | + | *stand-alone workshops |
| - | • panels | + | *panels |
| - | • crazy idea sessions | + | *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? | 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? | ||
Revision as of 19:28, 20 February 2006
Contents |
Health of Conferences Committee Survey Results
Introduction
Top 10 best conference ideas
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.
