Health of conferences committee update
Download
1 / 18

Health of Conferences - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 274 Views
  • Updated On :

Health of Conferences Committee Update. February 10, 2006 @ SIG Governing Board Meeting. Executive Summary. Working for six weeks to find some best practices Five questions yielded responses from 30 SIGS Reviewer load Non-incremental Program committees Workshops, etc. Catch all

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Health of Conferences' - Jims


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Health of conferences committee update l.jpg

Health of ConferencesCommittee Update

February 10, 2006 @ SIG Governing Board Meeting


Executive summary l.jpg
Executive Summary

  • Working for six weeks to find some best practices

  • Five questions yielded responses from 30 SIGS

    • Reviewer load

    • Non-incremental

    • Program committees

    • Workshops, etc.

    • Catch all

  • Have some first-impression results

  • Want feedback

    • [email protected] or [email protected]


Talk outline l.jpg
Talk Outline

  • Set Up

    • Charge

    • Process

    • Response Sources so Far

    • Caveats

  • Questions & Example Responses

  • Appendix: Full text of questions


Charge from acm president david patterson l.jpg
Charge from ACM President David Patterson

  • The idea is to collect the best practicesonto a web page so that conference organizers can see innovative waysto cope with the demands of paper submissions, refereeing, and presentations as the number of papers increase.The hope is that organizers will either try good new ideas or at least avoid the mistakes of others.


Process l.jpg
Process

  • Dec. 2005 committee formed; Baglio & Hill start up

  • Jan. 5 call to divide responsibly & set questions

    • Marks – ACM SIGs with BIG conferences (> 1K attendees)

    • Hall – ACM SIGs with MEDIUM

    • Baglio – ACM SIG with SMALL (< 100)

    • Gaudiot/Prinetto – IEEE in manner to be done

  • Iterated on questions; sent out; got many responses

  • Feb 6 call to check status & Feb 8/9 info to Hill

  • Feb 10 status to SGB (this talk)

  • Feb 27 call to review data on Wiki (we hope)


Response sources so far l.jpg
Response Sources so Far

  • ACM Big:

    • DAC, ICSE, OOPSLA, SIGCSE, SIGGRAPH

  • ACM Medium:

    • SIGART, SIGARCH, SIGCHI , SIGIR , SIGACT,SIGPLAN , SIGMOD, SIGCOMM , SIGKDD

  • ACM Small:

    • SIGAda, SIGAPP, SIGBED, SIGACCESS, SIGCSE, SIGDA, SIGDOC, SIGecom, SIGITE, SIGMETRICS, SIGMICRO, SIGMIS, SIGSAC, SIGSAM, SIGSIM, SIGUCCS, SIGWEB

  • IEEE: To be done

,


Regarding first impression results l.jpg
Regarding First-Impression Results

  • Goal

    • Unearth actionable ideas

    • Reveal failed ideas

  • Non-Goal

    • Determine summary statistics, becauseaudience interested in SIGs like theirs

  • Caveat

    • Data arrived to me yesterday & day before


Q1 reviewer load l.jpg
Q1: Reviewer Load

  • Tracking reviews? Increasing PC size? Fee? Others?

  • Big (SIGCSE): Maintain reviewer database

  • Medium (SIGART): Senior PC supervises whole PC

  • Small (SIGUCCS): tracking reviews among conferences (like journals)


Q2 non incremental l.jpg
Q2: Non-Incremental

  • Big ideas sessions? More papers? Shorter papers? Deemphasizing detailed evaluation? Others?

  • Big (ICSE): fun flames over beer & snacks

  • Medium (SIGKDD): KDD Cup competition to evaluate alternative approaches to the same problem

  • Small (SIGDOC): Earlier international acceptances to ease visa problems


Q3 program committees l.jpg
Q3: Program Committees

  • Double blind submissions? Program committee submission restrictions? Rebuttals? Large PCs? Program subcommittees? Others?

  • Big (SIGCSE): Encourage large PCs

  • Medium (SIGCHI): Rebuttals avoid compounding misunderstandings, make authors feel better, & help get reviews on time

  • Small (SIGITE): Single-person PC


Q4 workshops etc l.jpg
Q4: Workshops, etc.

  • Workshop co-located at conferences? Stand-alone workshops? Panels? Crazy idea sessions?

  • Big (OOPSLA): 5-minute lightning talks

  • Medium (SIGARCH): Some workshops get special issues in its newsletter

  • Small (SIGAda): Extended abstracts & experience reports


Q5 catch all l.jpg
Q5: Catch All

  • Are there other approaches your community has tried or abandoned that the rest of us can learn from?

  • Big (SIGGRAPH): Don’t be afraid to try; don’t be afraid to stop

  • Medium (SIGPLAN): Professionally supported PC software is big win

  • Small (SIGMICRO): Need better ways to handle conflicts of interest


Executive summary13 l.jpg
Executive Summary

  • Working for six weeks to find some best practices

  • Five questions yielded responses from 30 SIGS

    • Reviewer load

    • Non-incremental

    • Program committees

    • Workshops, etc.

    • Catch all

  • Have some first-impression results

  • Want feedback

    • [email protected] or [email protected]


Q1 reviewer load14 l.jpg
Q1: 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.


Q2 non incremental15 l.jpg
Q2: 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.


Q3 program committees16 l.jpg
Q3: 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?


Q4 workshops etc17 l.jpg
Q4: 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?


Q5 catch all18 l.jpg
Q5: Catch All

  • Are there other approaches your community has tried or abandoned that the rest of us can learn from?


ad