FOSS4G'13

The working site for the conference committee of FOSS4G 2013

Academic CfP Themes

Last saved by Mark Iliffe on October 19, 2012

FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham "Geo for All"

Academic Track:  “Science for Open Source, Open Source for Science”


First Call for Papers


The FOSS4G 2013 Academic Track is bringing together researchers, developers, users and practitioners carrying out research and development in the geospatial and the free and open source fields.

With the Academic Track motto “Science for Open Source, Open Source for Science”, we aim to attract academic papers describing

Based on these categories, to promote a strong connection between the Academic Track and the other elements of FOSS4G 2013, we hope for contributions within the following themes:


We invite academics and researchers to submit full papers in English, of maximum 8,000 words, before the deadline of 1 February 2013. More detailed requirements, regarding layout, formatting and the submission process, will be published in the 2nd Call for Papers, expected late 2012.


Your contributions will be reviewed (double-blind) by a diverse reviewing committee of experts in the field, who will be asked to assess the papers on originality and academic rigour, as well as interest for the wider FOSS4G community. We expect to select 20-25 papers for presentation and publication. From this selection, a maximum of 8-10 papers will be given the opportunity for inclusion in a special issue of the renowned international journal Transactions in GIS [1]. The remaining papers will be published in the online OSGEO Journal [2].


We would like to specifically invite “early stage researchers” (PhD students, PostDocs) to use this opportunity to aim for a high-ranking publication.


Authors of all selected papers will be expected to present their work in detail in a separate Academic Track (with 20-30 minute slots), and will also be given the opportunity to pitch the central theme of their paper in short 'lightning' talks to the larger community, to generate attention and cross-pollenate with industry, developers and users.


Important Dates:


For questions, comments and remarks, contact the Academic Track co-chairs:


[1]: Transactions in GIS. Published by Wiley; included in ISI, with an impact factor of 0.54; edited by John P. Wilson, David O'Sullivan and Alexander Zipf. Print ISSN: 1361-1682 Online ISSN: 1467-9671. http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-TGIS.html

[2]: OSGEO Journal, the official Journal of the Open Source Geospatial Foundation; http://journal.osgeo.org/index.php/journal





Comments

Addy Pope on September 28, 2012:

Do we have a revised date for issuing the CfP for the academic track? 

Mark Iliffe on September 28, 2012:

We do not have a revision date for the preliminary CfP. I'm of the opinion we collaborate here and post asap. Then refine by the 15th of the October. Ie. give us 7 days for a call and final touches. 

Barend Köbben on September 28, 2012:

I just added my draft of the 1st CfP to the text doc "Academic CfP themes". Please add you remarks, comments, etc to that.

Please note that I now set the detailed 2nd CfP for late November. I think we need that  (or maybe a bit more even?), because at that time we should have the submission system online (so including submission templates etc) and the reviewing committee complete...

Also note we still need some more ideas for the themes!

Mark Iliffe on September 28, 2012:

@Barend, Thanks! I think it looks good. I'd personally prefer to stay inline with our existing timescales for the 22nd of October. I think it's possible, given the progress with TGIS. This would mean that we'd need to liaise with Rollo and the MT team and update them on the paper selection system. 

When should we schedule the next AT call? Next week?

Barend Köbben on September 28, 2012:

@Mark, do you mean 22nd October for the detailed 2nd CfP? I'm not so sure we can have the submission system there at that moment (@Barry, any thoughts?). An AT call next week is probably a good idea, Tuesday , Thursday morning and Friday morning would be OK for me. 

Suchith Anand on September 28, 2012:

The draft CfP is looking good. For next week AT call best time for me is Tuesday morning.

Serena Coetzee on September 29, 2012:

The first two paragraphs say nothing about data, yet data is included in the themes. It could be included, for example, in the bullets:

  • the use of open source geospatial software and data in and for scientific research, as well as

  • academic endeavours to conceptualize, create, assess, and teach with and about open source geospatial software and data.

Serena Coetzee on September 29, 2012:

We invite academics and researchers... --> Just to make clear that researchers are included.

What is the purpose of the conference themes? If they are to be included as a criterion in the peer-reviewing process, then 'relevance' should be added as a criterion together with academic rigour and originality.   

Is it necessary to include the number of papers (20-25) that will be selected for presentation? What if things change and fewer (or more) are possible...?

Barry Rowlingson on September 30, 2012:

@Serena: I think it's already been decided that we won't have parallel academic track streams[1], so the 20-25 limit is based on having one talk at a time.

[1] Citation needed

Barend Köbben on September 30, 2012:

[1] https://basecamp.com/1920286/projects/762306-foss4g-13/documents/1200149-f2f-meeting-6th-sept

Barry Rowlingson on September 30, 2012:

Cheers Barend, you are my BiBTeX.

The TGIS link for us is a done deal now, right?

 I've been seeing a few tweets about a TGIS links for some esri uc meeting papers too, and I'd like to put out the press release showing that the open source community can do that too.

http://blogs.esri.com/esri/gisedcom/2012/09/29/call-for-presentations-special-giscience-research-session-2/

Charlie Schweik on September 30, 2012:

Just wanted to say that I looked at this CFP and it looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts, all.

Barend Köbben on September 30, 2012:

@Barry: Yes, it's a deal. I've sent john Wilson a mail with further questions , among them if they need a formal contract, but I actually do not expect that they will... You can tweet about it anyway...

Franz-Josef Behr on October 5, 2012:

Shouldn't there be some contact information, i. e., email address?

Franz-Josef Behr on October 5, 2012:

cross-pollenate --> cross-pollinate

Barend Köbben on October 5, 2012:

All,
I would like to round of the first CfP for the Academic Track soon now. I think with all our input it became quite good -- The only thing missing is a theme "one cross disciplinary idea to draw in non-geo people"...
I couldn't really formulate one myself, in the interest of progress can I suggest we give it until the end of this working day (Fri 5) and if no-one came up with a good description leave that theme out...?

I do not think we need another Skype or conference call to finish the CfP. We have agreements on the TGIS and OSGEO publication channels, so I think that after the weekend we can start publishing the CfP , on the site, OSGEO lists and through our respective networks.

After that, the next item we do need to discuss is the submission process/system. I am still waiting for some input from the TGIS and OSGEO people on that (templates, workflows). As soon as that's in, I suggest having a (digital) meeting with a smallish group on the technicalities: I'd suggest Franz-Josef, Barry R, Mark, and myself (other suggestions welcome)...

Mark Iliffe on October 15, 2012:

"The one cross disciplinary idea to draw in non-geo people...". I've added "Ergonomics and Usability in and around GI systems". Thoughts?

Franz-Josef Behr on October 15, 2012:

I published the CfP (without Mark's suggestion sofar) at http://www.gis-news.de/.

Mark Iliffe on October 15, 2012:

Thanks Franz-Josef. What do you (and others) think of the suggestion. I'm personally not beholden either way. However I think it could work as the catch all.

Addy Pope on October 15, 2012:

Would like to see something cross disciplinary but i am sure that themes like Open Data for Public services will play a part in this.  Usability is a buzz word at the moment though.  Will post on GoGeo and push out on twitter streams....

Franz-Josef Behr on October 15, 2012:

My impression is that the "open" aspect is not clear in "Ergonomics and Usability in and around GI systems".

Mark Iliffe on October 15, 2012:

Franz-Josef, you're right it isn't! I suggested not as a being open thing, but as something to widen participation from other academic disciplines who intersect with our field. Though Usability and Ergonomics are well grounded in Human Factors, links and interfaces have been made in the geo world; https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/education-and-research/research/events/workshops-on-usability-of-gi.html

I believe this fulfils the non-geo people in a way being open does not. 

Addy Pope on October 15, 2012:

Yup, a distinction that it is not specifically about "open usability tools" rather a focus on making Open tools/software better through improving their usability.  

Franz-Josef Behr on October 15, 2012:

Perhap: Ergonomics and Usability of Geographic Information and GI systems?
But this could also be part of another track...

Rafael Moreno on October 15, 2012:

Hi everyone,
Sorry I have dropped from the face of the Earth. Bombarded by family and work stuff.
A comment, totally minor. "Ergonomics" in the USA refers to the following not so much to the degree of "user friendly" or "easy of use".  If we agree on the use of the term, then probably we would be setting a standard for its use in the future in the FOSS4G context.
er·go·nom·ics  (ûrg-nmks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The applied science of equipment design, as for the workplace, intended to maximize productivity by reducing operator fatigue and discomfort. Also called biotechnology, human engineering, human factors engineering.
2. (used with a pl. verb) Design factors, as for the workplace, intended to maximize productivity by minimizing operator fatigue and discomfort: The ergonomics of the new office were felt to be optimal.

Addy Pope on October 16, 2012:

Would it be worth adding and "Academic Track" to the top navigation bar on the main foss4g2013 website?  We could then have the full details for the academic track there and then tweet the link to it? 

who has admin rights on the site?  Comms team?

Suchith Anand on October 16, 2012:

I agree. It will be good to have the Academic Track CfP added to the FOSS4G 2013 website and linked with the top navigation bar of FOSS4G 2013 website. Once done, we all can start sending the url to key contacts, maillists etc.

Addy Pope on October 16, 2012:

ok to tweet the first call?  It is out in the wild so to speak, right?

Barend Köbben on October 16, 2012:

Yes, by all means, send it out to as the world at large!

I've mailed it to Jo to be included on the website...

Mark Iliffe on October 16, 2012:

@Rafael; Human Factors I think could be a term which I think could be applied here, however it is not a well understood term over here (Nottingham has a HF research group, personally I badged it as ergonomics before being rebriefed.) On reflection, I do feel strongly in having a HF/Ergonomics theme. This has got quite a bit of traction in recent times in reaching out to new disciplines.

Barend Köbben on October 17, 2012:

@Rafael and @Mark: As you might have seen, in the CfP as it now went out we have "Human Computer Interfaces and Usability in and around Open GI systems". Hope this is not really wrong, and of course we can change it on the website and further emails and such...

Franz-Josef Behr on October 17, 2012:

OK, sounds great, and "Open" is included!

Addy Pope on October 17, 2012:

Not from me but another EDINA-bod:

"Am I missing something?  Is it not a bit rich for the Free and Open Source Software for Geospatial people to be trying to get people to submit papers for a closed subscription journal "...a special issue of the renowned international journal Transactions in GIS."

Despite the high "Impact Factor".  Do we (or should FOSS4G) have a policy of open access journals only? "

Thoughts?

Suchith Anand on October 17, 2012:

In my humble opinion, we should keep exploring more options for journal outlets in addition to TGIS and OSGEO journal in the future.

JOSIS looks like a good OA journal in GIS (though it is relatively new and IF less)

TGIS was publication outlet for some previous FOSS4G AT conferences but as we are looking long term for the AT publications, it is something to consider for the future FOSS4G ATs (atleast we can do some groundwork now for 2014)

Jo Cook on October 17, 2012:

I agree with Addy up to a point, although since OSGeo's Journal is definitely open, I assume that all these papers will be freely available anyhow? Or do TGIS prevent other methods of access to the papers? In that case, I would feel quite uncomfortable about things, but if we can offer TGIS and a free/open access option then that seems fine to me.

Jo

Barend Köbben on October 18, 2012:

Hi all,
this discussion if of course valid, but a bit after the fact...
When contemplating possible outlets, there's always this dilemma: for reasons of 'openess' you want Open Acces journals, but you also want to attract top research, and that will only come if you offer top outlets. And top outlets means at the moment ISI or similar indexing, and reality is that the only journals having that at the moment are not Open Access...
I think that with  8 or so in a "closed" journal and the other 15 or so in an open acces one, we have a good compromise.

@Jo: The 8-10 in TGIS will not also appear in OSGEO journal. TGIS is available for free to academics through their uni's etc, and for a cost (I think 7,50 Euro per article PDF) to everyone. MInd you: all this was one of the reasons for organising the "opportunity to pitch the central theme of their paper in short 'lightning' talks to the larger community, to generate attention and cross-pollenate with industry, developers and users".

Mark Iliffe on October 18, 2012:

Thanks for your analysis Barend.

I would echo Jo's fears, personally I'm not in favour of a closed access journal, however at the time the journal was presented as a fait accompli. This however may not be a bad thing and I think we can get the best of both worlds. My scant understanding is that it would be allowed for authors to host or make available spec drafts of their paper before the final journal submission. In that case we can take the paper and host it, or link to their institutional page with the paper on it.

Therefore we get the impact factor journal and ensure the work is freely available.

Jeremy Morley on October 18, 2012:

I'm afraid I support Barend on this. Open access is good, and JOSIS for example is a well run journal. But at this stage of FOSS4G's life, if we actually want the conference to be taken seriously as an academic outlet we need a well rated journal. T.GiS's ISI rating gives it that. TGIS will need to have copyright assigned for publication: for this reason, and principles of plagiarism, the OSGeo journal would not be able to publish the same paper. However Mark is right that it is usually possible for authors to circumvent these issues by placing a similar but different (needn't be by much) version on the web.

The reason a higher ISI rating is desired is partly because it shows that the journal takes peer review, the lynchpin of academic science, seriously; and as a result attracts good quality papers. This makes it much more worthwhile for an academic to focus on this conference over the many others available as an outlet for work.