FOSS4G'13

The working site for the conference committee of FOSS4G 2013

"Call for papers" and email from David Herbert

Posted by Barry Rowlingson on January 15, 2013

Email from David Herbert to the list this morning, he's confused about papers and submissions. The website has to make it clear what we need and the difference between the two big streams - regular programme and academic track.

Can we rename the 'Call for Papers' for the regular programme into 'Call for Presentations'?  "Call For Papers" sounds wrong here, and a bit academic for our audience. Its correct place is in the academic track call.

The "call for presentations" text should mention at the start that there is a separate "call for papers" for full papers for academic publishing, and the "call for papers" page should mention at the start that there is a separate "call for presentations" that just needs abstracts.

Maybe also a separate "Call for Workshops", which details that process separately. Maybe even change the page titles to "Submit a presentation" and "Propose a workshop" to make them less academic and more inviting?

What think you?

Comments

Barend Köbben on January 15, 2013:

Hi Barry,

I agree we could use some clarification. From "our" side, I propose to change the CfP page text to [additions in italic]:

"Call for Papers Academic Track

Final Call for Papers Academic Track: Submission open

Submission for papers in the Academic Track of FOSS4G 2013 is now open at http://2013.foss4g.org/ojs/


Note that FOSS4G features a larger stream of regular presentation slots, with its own Call for Presentations, next to this academic peer reviewed full paper track.


The FOSS4G 2013 Academic Track..."

Peter Batty on January 15, 2013:

One thing we discussed in passing was that we should consider having some rules for how many papers can be submitted and accepted by an individual. Especially if we are doing anonymous community rating, I would suggest that we need a limit on submissions, otherwise I can see some people submitting a large number to try to increase their chance of acceptance. I think we should try to decide on this before putting out the call for presentations / papers for the main conference.

Rafael Moreno on January 15, 2013:

1. I like "Call for Presentations" for general conference and "Call for Papers" for Academic Track.


2. As Peter says, in FOSS4G 2011 we had conversations about number of papers limits. At the end a predetermined limit on submissions was not necessary because: a) It is unlikely that one person/group submits more than 2 papers; b) If they do, it is unlikely that more than 2 papers will have enough quality to pass the review process; c) better to have more than not to have enough papers to fill the time slots in the Academic Track. In FOSS4G 2011 we barely had enough quality submissions to fill the program, because of last moment withdraws; d) the International Scientific Committee can ultimately decide to reduce the number of presentations by one person or group to avoid the dominance of one perspective. Quality and diversity of presentations are part of the considerations when deciding on the final program. I remember the case of a border line good paper from Africa that we decide to include in the program (the person ended up not coming) which is other considerations to keep in mind: people not showing or withdrawing in the last moment.

Franz-Josef Behr on January 15, 2013:

@Barry and Barend:  +1 for "Call for Presentations"

@Peter and Rafael: In the Academic Track we already have this phenomenon: Five submissions by one author.

Rafael Moreno on January 15, 2013:

Wow! Incredible. I don't know who would put "all their eggs" in one basket (a single conference). Not good for academic "bean counting" purposes. I say, accept the submissions. the review process and final program decisions will take care of excess. I think that more than 2 presentations by one author starts to become a monologue unless the presentations beyond 2 are earth shattering.

Mark Iliffe on January 15, 2013:

A call for workshops is a good idea. I will point you in the direction of this thread: https://basecamp.com/1920286/projects/762306-foss4g-13/messages/7696204-osgeo-workshops-and I think we should be seeking all-comers, not just a select few.

Antony Scott on January 15, 2013:

Call for presentations is fine - in fact the text (http://2013.foss4g.org/programme/call-for-papers/) says presentations and the menu items papers, so makes sense to make it consistent.

The page contains a call for workshops too, though we could separate this out. My tendency is to keep it together for simplicity, but we can highlight either both in news, tweets, etc etc. We still need to get our submission system sorted before people can actually respond, we are due a call of the programme group this week and will try and get it in place pronto...

Steven Feldman on January 16, 2013:

Can one of the programme team post a response to David Herbert's mail to the mailing lists even if it is just a holding mail

Antony Scott on January 16, 2013:

Barry did already I think.

Barry Rowlingson on January 16, 2013:

I did, it went to the list so everyone should have seen it.

Barry Rowlingson on January 16, 2013:

I've tweaked some of the website pages to better describe the
presentation/workshop/academic paper structure.