Q3: Large Conferences
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 21:26, 22 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 21:30, 22 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| '''OOPSLA''' | '''OOPSLA''' | ||
| - | :workshop co-located at conferences | + | :double blind submissions |
| - | :Workshops have been always an impportant part of OOPSLA. For the last 4 years OOPSLA has been co-located with other conferences. | + | :Not for the moment |
| - | :stand-alone workshops | + | :program committee submission restrictions |
| - | :We didn't call them Workshops but we have tracks such as the Educators' and Doctoral Symposia that are stand alone. For few years OOPSLA sponsored mid-year series of Workshop as a separate meetings from OOPSLA but achieved moderate success and the idea died when its champion stepped down. | + | :No restrictions but stricter review for program committee papers |
| - | :panels | + | :rebuttals (author responses) |
| - | :Always as part of the core OOPSLA conference | + | :No, though every now and then a complaint is registered and the Program Chair as well as the Conference Chair respond appropriately. |
| - | :crazy idea sessions | + | :large program committees |
| - | :Last year we introduced the Lightning Talks (strictly 5 minutes talks for any idea an author would like to share with the audience). It is too early to assess its success, but the concept was borrowed from other conferences where such talks were a great success. | + | :Not sure what qualifies as large and I assume it is in relationship to the number of submitted papers. For OOPSLA the submission usually range from 160-190 papers. Program Committee ranges from 22 - 28. I will leave it up to you to determine if this is a large committee or not. |
| - | :On balance, are these other venues effect for advancing your field? | + | :program subcommittees |
| - | :What mechanisms, if any, do you use allow good papers from these venues | + | :Not officially, but the assumption is that every PC member will reply on others that assist him/her in reviewing the paper assigned to them. However, ultimately the members of the PC are responsible. (which it the common practice). However, with some of the introduced new categories of papers (such as Essays and the selected Onward! subcommittees are formed and are responsible for the selection of their papers. |
| - | to later achieve wider dissemination? | + | |
| - | :I believe OOPSLA was instrumental in introducing many of such venues that other conference adopted and such venues proved very valuable for the community. OOPSLA publishes a companion to the proceedings which includes the workshops conclusion, panels, etc. Also, Onward! presentations have been published in separate publications. | + | :Do these practices seem to help or hurt promoting your field? |
| + | :Some of these are new and the impact is not completely determined, however, we noticed a very positive impact for introducing the Onward! track. | ||
Revision as of 21:30, 22 February 2006
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?
OOPSLA
- double blind submissions
- Not for the moment
- program committee submission restrictions
- No restrictions but stricter review for program committee papers
- rebuttals (author responses)
- No, though every now and then a complaint is registered and the Program Chair as well as the Conference Chair respond appropriately.
- large program committees
- Not sure what qualifies as large and I assume it is in relationship to the number of submitted papers. For OOPSLA the submission usually range from 160-190 papers. Program Committee ranges from 22 - 28. I will leave it up to you to determine if this is a large committee or not.
- program subcommittees
- Not officially, but the assumption is that every PC member will reply on others that assist him/her in reviewing the paper assigned to them. However, ultimately the members of the PC are responsible. (which it the common practice). However, with some of the introduced new categories of papers (such as Essays and the selected Onward! subcommittees are formed and are responsible for the selection of their papers.
- Do these practices seem to help or hurt promoting your field?
- Some of these are new and the impact is not completely determined, however, we noticed a very positive impact for introducing the Onward! track.
SIGCSE
- stand-alone workshops
in computer science education, CCSC and other groups sponsor quite a number of regional conferences. SIGCSE is in cooperation with these. Since these have a strong following, SIGCSE has not seen any reason to try to duplicate them.
- panels
- each conference has a range of panels on new or emerging ideas.
- crazy idea sessions
- The SIGCSE Symposium provides an opportunity for "Special Sessions" and Birds-of-a-Feather than can promote a range of "crazy" ideas.
- 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?
- The SIGCSE Bulletin and conferences are the primary mechanisms for communication within the computer science education community -- especially at the college level. We have tried to expand this to other levels (with special emphasis on two-year colleges and high schools), within our resources. For example, we have had special conference rates for high school teachers.
