Document Actions
Publications Board Update
Marilyn Salzman gives an update on the Publications Board activities.
I wanted to send a quick update to let you know that the pubs
survey review team okayed our plan to move forward with the survey,
asking that we have someone on our team review it ask the survey and
plan come together. I briefly describe the plan below, and I request
that you offer me any help concerning the following:
Getting lists of submitter for the past several years (CHI, CSCW, UIST, DIS, DUX).Â
Quick overview
Objectives.Â
To understand what happens to papers/research after SIGCHI conferences (CHI, CSCW, UIST, DIS, DUX in particular)- both accepted and rejected.  e.g., Are they further developed for journals, presented at other non-SIGCHI conferences, etc? Â
To understand some of the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewing practices today. e.g., Were the reviews fair, were the suggestions in the reviews helpful or not, how likely are submitters to submit to this conference again, what recs do they have for improvement, etc.?
Other issues that the CMC or EC feels are important to address. (Please send suggestions.)
Bob might also like to include something about the process of producing the paper (collaboration, networking, disciplinary perspectives) result in quality and outcomes.
Strategy
Identify submitters to CHI, CSCW, UIST, DIS, DUX over the past several years (back to 2002, or even 2001)
Stratified sampling for (1) accepted/rejected papers and (2) conferences
Getting lists of submitter for the past several years (CHI, CSCW, UIST, DIS, DUX).Â
- CHI 03 and 04Â are in PCS (05 is soon to be)
- CHI 01 and 02 are in the Microsoft DB
- CSCW 04, UIST 04, and DIS 04 are in PCS
- DUX 03 - not sure
- DIS 02 - not sure
- UIST 02, 03 - not sure
Quick overview
Objectives.Â
To understand what happens to papers/research after SIGCHI conferences (CHI, CSCW, UIST, DIS, DUX in particular)- both accepted and rejected.  e.g., Are they further developed for journals, presented at other non-SIGCHI conferences, etc? Â
To understand some of the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewing practices today. e.g., Were the reviews fair, were the suggestions in the reviews helpful or not, how likely are submitters to submit to this conference again, what recs do they have for improvement, etc.?
Other issues that the CMC or EC feels are important to address. (Please send suggestions.)
Bob might also like to include something about the process of producing the paper (collaboration, networking, disciplinary perspectives) result in quality and outcomes.
Strategy
Identify submitters to CHI, CSCW, UIST, DIS, DUX over the past several years (back to 2002, or even 2001)
Stratified sampling for (1) accepted/rejected papers and (2) conferences