From klabarre at illinois.edu Tue Apr 1 21:21:11 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 20:21:11 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] Call for SIG nominations for ASIST-AM panel reviewers ASAP!!! Message-ID: Greetings and thanks to HFIS, MGT, STI and USE for their reviewer nominations. For the rest of the SIGs, this is a reminder to send me a list of your nominations for SIG members to serve as reviewers of SIG panels by THIS FRIDAY!! More details below. On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Kathryn La Barre wrote: > Greetings, > > I've been contacted by the conference chair, Jens-Erik Mai, with the > notice that the panel track reviewing of SIG-sponsored panels will change > this year. Ideally - J-E would "like to assign at least one reviewer who is > affiliated with a particular SIG(s) to be one of the three reviewers of the > SIG panel proposals." > > From J-E: > "What we need is a list of "SIG people" that could be invited to review > for the conference. The challenge is to get a list of SIG people who are > active in their SIGs and whom the SIG leadership would like to see that we > involve in the review process. Those nominated will be invited to review - > and must accept the invitation before they are sent any material to review." > > More information about reviewing and expected submissions: > > IN 2012 there were 58 proposals for panels, 30 were accepted. > Last year there were 45 proposals for panels, 28 were accepted. > Only 24 panels will be accepted this year, but submissions are expected to > be strong. > > He's asked me to submit one file of the SIG nominations. Thanks to HFIS > which has already submitted the names of their nominees~! > > When you send me your list, I need the following information > Name, email address, institutional affiliation, SIG affiliation. > > Thanks for participating in this initiative which is designed to increase > SIG involvement in the annual meeting. We don't have much time to gather > names I'm hoping you can submit them by next Friday. > > >> Reviewing deadlines: >> April 23rd - Notify co-chairs of intended SIG-sponsored submissions >> April 30th - Panel submission deadline >> May 5th - Reviewers receive assignments >> May 26th - Review completion deadline >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Tue Apr 1 21:29:29 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 20:29:29 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] Call for SIG-sponsored panels @ 77th ASIST annual meeting, 10/31-11/4 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings! This is a reminder of the April 23rd deadline [THREE WEEKS AWAY NOTE: This is one week prior to the official panel submission deadline] to let Howard and Pnina (co-chairs of the panels track) know of pending submissions of SIG-sponsored panels. I hope to have a strong set of SIG submissions this year!! Please do not hesitate to call on your SIG Cabinet officers for assistance! Advice from the chairs: Each SIG is strongly encouraged to solicit, develop, and internally review the panels your SIG will sponsor / or co-sponsor. The panel co-chairs advise that they won't subvert the review process, but will "look favorably" upon panel submissions with multiple sponsors. [See new panel review criteria below] What to submit and when: By April 23, SIG officers must contact panel co-chairs Pnina Fichman fichman at indiana.edu and Howard Rosenbaum hrosenba at indiana.edu with the following information about your SIG-sponsored panels (1) Sponsoring SIG(s), (2) Panel title, (3)Brief description. *From the CFP* Proposals for panels, lightening talks, fishbowls, Pecha Kucha, etc. are invited on topics that include emerging cutting-edge research and design, analyses of emerging trends, opinions on controversial issues, analyses of tools and techniques, and contrasting viewpoints from experts in complementary areas of research. Panels are not a substitute for a set of contributed papers, but must have a cohesive theme and promote lively interaction between panelists and audience members. Submit 3-5 pages that provide an overview of the issues to be discussed by the panel. Proposals should also list panelists who have agreed to participate and indicate the qualifications and contribution that each panelist will offer. To assist you with your planning the co-chairs have provided the new panel review criteria. [full text of criteria below] A high quality panel will have a cohesive and well-defined theme, with clear topics or questions. Panelists should be listed and present a broad range of viewpoints. Aim for expertise, or select people who can be good representative of the viewpoints on the panel. Will the panel generate a lot of buzz? Overly focused or specialized panel topics will generate low scores under this set of reviewing criteria. > > Panel review criteria: > > Quality of Submission (1-5) > > > > Please assess the quality of the submission. Does the panel have a > coherent theme? Are the topics well-delineated? Are the points of interest > or controversy identified? Is the structure of the panel adequately > described and appropriate? > > > > * 5 = High-quality work. Topic/questions are clearly delineated; the > approach is suitable and panel approach is well defined. Should create > discussion and interaction > > * 4 = Solid work with a few shortcomings or flaws. Not much offered that > is controversial, but good coverage of the subject matter is likely > > * 3 = Not clear this is anything new, but coverage of topic is useful > > * 2 = Submission has possibilities, but they are unlikely to be realized > based on this submission > > * 1 = Submission is confused and unfocused, not well thought out or > conceived > > > > Presentation Quality (1-5) > > > > Is the submission well-written and well-structured? > > > > * 5 = Very well written, a pleasure to read, easy to follow, few > grammatical or typographical errors > > * 4 = The essential content will be understood by most readers, but the > writing or figures could be improved > > * 3 = The major points are clear, but the details are either obscured by > poor writing or are missing > > * 2 = Important questions were hard to resolve even with effort; the > submission may need editing by a native speaker > > * 1 = The submission is so poorly written that it is difficult to judge > the work > > > > Interest and Timeliness (1-5) > > > > Please assess the timeliness of the topic and the interest you expect it > to elicit. Will there be general excitement and buzz about the panel (high > interest)? Is there a solid contingent of the attendees who will show up to > see this (moderate interest)? Or will only a handful of specialists attend > (low interest)? > > > > * 5 = Very timely. Should be of considerable interest to a large segment > of the attendees. > > * 4 =Timely and of interest to many. May be coming topic of growing > interest > > * 3 = Normal topic for ASIS&T meetings and of continuing interest > > * 2 = Has been considered previously, perhaps exhaustively > > * 1 = Neither timely nor likely to be of interest to ASIS&T attendees > > > > Panel Presenters (1-5) > > > > Are the panelists/presenters listed and are they appropriate experts to > discuss this topic? Do they represent a sufficiently broad set of > viewpoints? Or are these the wrong people for the job (i.e. the topic is of > interest, but they won't represent the viewpoints well)? > > > > * 5 = Panelists/presenters are appropriate and diverse, should generate > discussion, thought and interaction. > > * 4 = Solid panel > > * 3 = Adequate panel, not controversial but well informed on topic > > * 2 = weak panel, not likely to stimulate discussion, just recitation of > what is known already > > * 1 = inadequate panel, appears to be unaware of developments > > > > Overall Assessment (1-5) > > > > Does this submission fit within the scope of ASIS&T, and should be > considered for inclusion in the annual meeting? How important is this > panel? Will there be interest in the panel/workshop/tutorial? Please > consider your ultimate recommendation carefully. Should the submission be > accepted or rejected? > > > > * 5 = Groundbreaking (Strong accept): I'd fight to get it accepted > > * 4 = Solid work (Accept): Unambiguous accept > > * 3 = Lean towards Acceptance (Weak accept): Accept if there's room; I > would not argue if others wanted to reject it. > > * 2 = Lean towards Rejection (Weak reject): I'd rather not see it in the > conference, but would not argue if others think it should get in > > * 1 = Weak work (Reject): Unambiguous reject (is not of sufficient quality > for ASIST2013) > > > > Confidence in your review (1-5) > > > > * 5 = Very Confident: I have understood the submission completely and > accurately (or I am sure about serious flaws in the submission), and I am > an expert on this topic ; I am very familiar (and am current) with the > literature in the area. > > * 4 = Mostly confident: I have understood the main idea of the submission, > and I'm reasonably familiar with the topic, although I may not be > up-to-date on the literature and/or best practice. > > * 3 = Confident > > * 2 = Unsure: I have understood the main ideas in the submission, but I'm > unfamiliar with the literature and/or best practice in this area. > > * 1 = I didn't understand the submission. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Wed Apr 9 08:50:18 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 07:50:18 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] Call for SIG-sponsored panels @ 77th ASIST annual meeting, 10/31-11/4 2014 Message-ID: SIG Cabinet had a great response from SIGs for reviewer nominations - 47 names! Jens-Erik plans to contact reviewers later today to invite them to review for panels. Only those who accept the invitation will be issued assignments. J-E has advised the panel co-chairs the following: "Once you assign reviewers to the panel proposals I suggest that you ensure to assign at least one 'SIG affiliated person' from the attached list to each SIG sponsored panel proposal [note that not all may choose to accept the invitation]" >>>!!! Now we must focus on the submission of SIG-sponsored panels!! Is your SIG planning to sponsor or co-sponsor panels? Please do not hesitate to call on your SIG Cabinet officers for assistance! April 23rd is the deadline for notifying panel co-chairs Pnina Shachaf and Howard Rosenbaum of pending submissions of SIG-sponsored panels. Please include the following information: (1) Sponsoring SIG(s), (2) Panel title, (3)Brief description. NOTE: This is one week prior to the official [and formal online] panel submission deadline. Please work with your members and reach out to other SIGs for co-sponsored panels. Each SIG is strongly encouraged to solicit, develop, and internally review the panels your SIG will sponsor / or co-sponsor. The panel co-chairs advise that they won't subvert the review process, but will "look favorably" upon panel submissions with multiple sponsors. [See new panel review criteria below**] *From the CFP* Proposals for panels, lightening talks, fishbowls, Pecha Kucha, etc. are invited on topics that include emerging cutting-edge research and design, analyses of emerging trends, opinions on controversial issues, analyses of tools and techniques, and contrasting viewpoints from experts in complementary areas of research. Panels are not a substitute for a set of contributed papers, but must have a cohesive theme and promote lively interaction between panelists and audience members. Submit 3-5 pages that provide an overview of the issues to be discussed by the panel. Proposals should also list panelists who have agreed to participate and indicate the qualifications and contribution that each panelist will offer. To assist you with your planning the co-chairs have provided the new panel review criteria. [full text of criteria below] A high quality panel will have a cohesive and well-defined theme, with clear topics or questions. Panelists should be listed and present a broad range of viewpoints. Aim for expertise, or select people who can be good representative of the viewpoints on the panel. Will the panel generate a lot of buzz? Overly focused or specialized panel topics will generate low scores under this set of reviewing criteria. **Panel review criteria: > Quality of Submission (1-5) > > > > Please assess the quality of the submission. Does the panel have a > coherent theme? Are the topics well-delineated? Are the points of interest > or controversy identified? Is the structure of the panel adequately > described and appropriate? > > > > * 5 = High-quality work. Topic/questions are clearly delineated; the > approach is suitable and panel approach is well defined. Should create > discussion and interaction > > * 4 = Solid work with a few shortcomings or flaws. Not much offered that > is controversial, but good coverage of the subject matter is likely > > * 3 = Not clear this is anything new, but coverage of topic is useful > > * 2 = Submission has possibilities, but they are unlikely to be realized > based on this submission > > * 1 = Submission is confused and unfocused, not well thought out or > conceived > > > > Presentation Quality (1-5) > > > > Is the submission well-written and well-structured? > > > > * 5 = Very well written, a pleasure to read, easy to follow, few > grammatical or typographical errors > > * 4 = The essential content will be understood by most readers, but the > writing or figures could be improved > > * 3 = The major points are clear, but the details are either obscured by > poor writing or are missing > > * 2 = Important questions were hard to resolve even with effort; the > submission may need editing by a native speaker > > * 1 = The submission is so poorly written that it is difficult to judge > the work > > > > Interest and Timeliness (1-5) > > > > Please assess the timeliness of the topic and the interest you expect it > to elicit. Will there be general excitement and buzz about the panel (high > interest)? Is there a solid contingent of the attendees who will show up to > see this (moderate interest)? Or will only a handful of specialists attend > (low interest)? > > > > * 5 = Very timely. Should be of considerable interest to a large segment > of the attendees. > > * 4 =Timely and of interest to many. May be coming topic of growing > interest > > * 3 = Normal topic for ASIS&T meetings and of continuing interest > > * 2 = Has been considered previously, perhaps exhaustively > > * 1 = Neither timely nor likely to be of interest to ASIS&T attendees > > > > Panel Presenters (1-5) > > > > Are the panelists/presenters listed and are they appropriate experts to > discuss this topic? Do they represent a sufficiently broad set of > viewpoints? Or are these the wrong people for the job (i.e. the topic is of > interest, but they won't represent the viewpoints well)? > > > > * 5 = Panelists/presenters are appropriate and diverse, should generate > discussion, thought and interaction. > > * 4 = Solid panel > > * 3 = Adequate panel, not controversial but well informed on topic > > * 2 = weak panel, not likely to stimulate discussion, just recitation of > what is known already > > * 1 = inadequate panel, appears to be unaware of developments > > > > Overall Assessment (1-5) > > > > Does this submission fit within the scope of ASIS&T, and should be > considered for inclusion in the annual meeting? How important is this > panel? Will there be interest in the panel/workshop/tutorial? Please > consider your ultimate recommendation carefully. Should the submission be > accepted or rejected? > > > > * 5 = Groundbreaking (Strong accept): I'd fight to get it accepted > > * 4 = Solid work (Accept): Unambiguous accept > > * 3 = Lean towards Acceptance (Weak accept): Accept if there's room; I > would not argue if others wanted to reject it. > > * 2 = Lean towards Rejection (Weak reject): I'd rather not see it in the > conference, but would not argue if others think it should get in > > * 1 = Weak work (Reject): Unambiguous reject (is not of sufficient quality > for ASIST2013) > > > > Confidence in your review (1-5) > > > > * 5 = Very Confident: I have understood the submission completely and > accurately (or I am sure about serious flaws in the submission), and I am > an expert on this topic ; I am very familiar (and am current) with the > literature in the area. > > * 4 = Mostly confident: I have understood the main idea of the submission, > and I'm reasonably familiar with the topic, although I may not be > up-to-date on the literature and/or best practice. > > * 3 = Confident > > * 2 = Unsure: I have understood the main ideas in the submission, but I'm > unfamiliar with the literature and/or best practice in this area. > > * 1 = I didn't understand the submission. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Sun Apr 13 18:20:48 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 17:20:48 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] New Leader Award. Apply now. Deadline May 15th! Message-ID: Greetings, Are you a current ASIST member in your first three years of membership? Please consider applying to be one of the New Leaders in the 2014 cohort. Eight awards are available for 2014. Awardees will be assigned a mentor, and will receive travel and conference fee support for the 2014 and 2015 annual meetings. How do I apply? Find out full details of this award and the application process here (and below): https://www.asis.org/awards/asistnewleadersaward.html If you have any questions please contact the Chair of the New Leader Committee, Kathryn La Barre klabarre at illinois.edu ASIS&T New Leaders Award Guidelines *Objective*To recruit, engage, and retain new members and to identify potential for new leadership in the Association. *Eligibility*Only members in their *first three years of membership* are eligible to apply (student or regular). *Deadline*The application is due no later than *May 15, 2014*. *Award amount*If selected, you will receive: 1. Up to $1000 in travel expense reimbursement to defray the cost of attending the Annual Meetings. This must be split over two consecutive Annual Meetings, with the reimbursement cost of a single meeting not to exceed $700. 2. Free conference registration for these two years (excluding seminars, workshops and other special events, although these can be reimbursed from the travel expenses provided). *Application* ASIS&T New Leaders Award Application 1. Each applicant must submit a statement (no more than 500 words) detailing: a. Why you would like to attend the ASIS&T 2014 Annual Meeting b. What benefits you would derive c. Your previous involvement in ASIS&T (if any) d. Your plans for future involvement in ASIS&T 2. Along with your application, applicants must select the regional or student chapter to which they feel most connected (if applicable), a SIG (or multiple) and/or ASIS&T committee (such as Membership) in which they would like to be involved. Applicants are asked to select no more than 3 in each category (across chapters, SIGS, and committees) and to present these on their application in rank order. The rank order indicates the Chapter, SIG, or Committee in which the applicant would most like to become involved. If the applicant is already heavily involved in one of these units, it is suggested that they choose a new unit with which they have less familiarity. 3. The selection committee will check all potential awardees to ensure that the applicant is a current member of ASIS&T. 4. The application should be submitted online by* May 15, 2014*. A current CV/resume of the applicant should be uploaded with the application no later than May 15th, 2014. *Selection* 1. The applications will be reviewed by the selection committee, comprised of members from Chapter Assembly, SIG Cabinet and the ASIS&T Board. At least four members will comprise this committee. 2. The selection committee will make selections based on the potential of the applicant to contribute to the Society. In addition, an effort will be made to distribute applicants across multiple SIGs, Chapters, and Committees. 3. No more than 8 awards will be made for 2014. 4. Applicants will be notified by June 15, 2014. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Mon Apr 21 15:00:09 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:00:09 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] APRIL 23 deadline!! Intent to submit SIG-sponsored panels Message-ID: Is your SIG planning to sponsor or co-sponsor panels? I've seen the notification for SIG-DL~! You have two days to notify panel co-chairs Pnina Shachaf and Howard Rosenbaum of pending submissions of SIG-sponsored panels. Please include the following information: (1) Sponsoring SIG(s), (2) Panel title, (3)Brief description. NOTE: This is one week prior to the official [and formal online] panel submission deadline. Please work with your members and reach out to other SIGs for co-sponsored panels. Each SIG is strongly encouraged to solicit, develop, and internally review the panels your SIG will sponsor / or co-sponsor. The panel co-chairs advise that they won't subvert the review process, but will "look favorably" upon panel submissions with multiple sponsors. [See new panel review criteria below**] *From the CFP* Proposals for panels, lightening talks, fishbowls, Pecha Kucha, etc. are invited on topics that include emerging cutting-edge research and design, analyses of emerging trends, opinions on controversial issues, analyses of tools and techniques, and contrasting viewpoints from experts in complementary areas of research. Panels are not a substitute for a set of contributed papers, but must have a cohesive theme and promote lively interaction between panelists and audience members. Submit 3-5 pages that provide an overview of the issues to be discussed by the panel. Proposals should also list panelists who have agreed to participate and indicate the qualifications and contribution that each panelist will offer. To assist you with your planning the co-chairs have provided the new panel review criteria. [full text of criteria below] A high quality panel will have a cohesive and well-defined theme, with clear topics or questions. Panelists should be listed and present a broad range of viewpoints. Aim for expertise, or select people who can be good representative of the viewpoints on the panel. Will the panel generate a lot of buzz? Overly focused or specialized panel topics will generate low scores under this set of reviewing criteria. **Panel review criteria: > Quality of Submission (1-5) > > > > Please assess the quality of the submission. Does the panel have a > coherent theme? Are the topics well-delineated? Are the points of interest > or controversy identified? Is the structure of the panel adequately > described and appropriate? > > > > ? 5 = High-quality work. Topic/questions are clearly delineated; the > approach is suitable and panel approach is well defined. Should create > discussion and interaction > > ? 4 = Solid work with a few shortcomings or flaws. Not much offered that > is controversial, but good coverage of the subject matter is likely > > ? 3 = Not clear this is anything new, but coverage of topic is useful > > ? 2 = Submission has possibilities, but they are unlikely to be realized > based on this submission > > ? 1 = Submission is confused and unfocused, not well thought out or > conceived > > > > Presentation Quality (1-5) > > > > Is the submission well-written and well-structured? > > > > ? 5 = Very well written, a pleasure to read, easy to follow, few > grammatical or typographical errors > > ? 4 = The essential content will be understood by most readers, but the > writing or figures could be improved > > ? 3 = The major points are clear, but the details are either obscured by > poor writing or are missing > > ? 2 = Important questions were hard to resolve even with effort; the > submission may need editing by a native speaker > > ? 1 = The submission is so poorly written that it is difficult to judge > the work > > > > Interest and Timeliness (1-5) > > > > Please assess the timeliness of the topic and the interest you expect it > to elicit. Will there be general excitement and buzz about the panel (high > interest)? Is there a solid contingent of the attendees who will show up to > see this (moderate interest)? Or will only a handful of specialists attend > (low interest)? > > > > ? 5 = Very timely. Should be of considerable interest to a large segment > of the attendees. > > ? 4 =Timely and of interest to many. May be coming topic of growing > interest > > ? 3 = Normal topic for ASIS&T meetings and of continuing interest > > ? 2 = Has been considered previously, perhaps exhaustively > > ? 1 = Neither timely nor likely to be of interest to ASIS&T attendees > > > > Panel Presenters (1-5) > > > > Are the panelists/presenters listed and are they appropriate experts to > discuss this topic? Do they represent a sufficiently broad set of > viewpoints? Or are these the wrong people for the job (i.e. the topic is of > interest, but they won't represent the viewpoints well)? > > > > ? 5 = Panelists/presenters are appropriate and diverse, should generate > discussion, thought and interaction. > > ? 4 = Solid panel > > ? 3 = Adequate panel, not controversial but well informed on topic > > ? 2 = weak panel, not likely to stimulate discussion, just recitation of > what is known already > > ? 1 = inadequate panel, appears to be unaware of developments > > > > Overall Assessment (1-5) > > > > Does this submission fit within the scope of ASIS&T, and should be > considered for inclusion in the annual meeting? How important is this > panel? Will there be interest in the panel/workshop/tutorial? Please > consider your ultimate recommendation carefully. Should the submission be > accepted or rejected? > > > > ? 5 = Groundbreaking (Strong accept): I'd fight to get it accepted > > ? 4 = Solid work (Accept): Unambiguous accept > > ? 3 = Lean towards Acceptance (Weak accept): Accept if there's room; I > would not argue if others wanted to reject it. > > ? 2 = Lean towards Rejection (Weak reject): I'd rather not see it in the > conference, but would not argue if others think it should get in > > ? 1 = Weak work (Reject): Unambiguous reject (is not of sufficient quality > for ASIST2013) > > > > Confidence in your review (1-5) > > > > ? 5 = Very Confident: I have understood the submission completely and > accurately (or I am sure about serious flaws in the submission), and I am > an expert on this topic ; I am very familiar (and am current) with the > literature in the area. > > ? 4 = Mostly confident: I have understood the main idea of the submission, > and I'm reasonably familiar with the topic, although I may not be > up-to-date on the literature and/or best practice. > > ? 3 = Confident > > ? 2 = Unsure: I have understood the main ideas in the submission, but I'm > unfamiliar with the literature and/or best practice in this area. > > ? 1 = I didn?t understand the submission. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Tue Apr 22 06:46:39 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:46:39 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] APRIL 23 deadline!! Intent to submit SIG-sponsored panels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Deadline tomorrow!! co-chair email addresses below: Is your SIG planning to sponsor or co-sponsor panels? Please notify co-chairs Pnina Fichman fichman at indiana.edu and Howard Rosenbaum hrosenba at indiana.edu of pending submissions of SIG-sponsored panels by tomorrow - April 23rd. Include the following information: (1) Sponsoring SIG(s), (2) Panel title, (3)Brief description. NOTE: This is one week prior to the official [and formal online] panel submission deadline. Please work with your members and reach out to other SIGs for co-sponsored panels. Each SIG is strongly encouraged to solicit, develop, and internally review the panels your SIG will sponsor / or co-sponsor. The panel co-chairs advise that they won't subvert the review process, but will "look favorably" upon panel submissions with multiple sponsors. [See new panel review criteria below**] *From the CFP* Proposals for panels, lightening talks, fishbowls, Pecha Kucha, etc. are invited on topics that include emerging cutting-edge research and design, analyses of emerging trends, opinions on controversial issues, analyses of tools and techniques, and contrasting viewpoints from experts in complementary areas of research. Panels are not a substitute for a set of contributed papers, but must have a cohesive theme and promote lively interaction between panelists and audience members. Submit 3-5 pages that provide an overview of the issues to be discussed by the panel. Proposals should also list panelists who have agreed to participate and indicate the qualifications and contribution that each panelist will offer. To assist you with your planning the co-chairs have provided the new panel review criteria. [full text of criteria below] A high quality panel will have a cohesive and well-defined theme, with clear topics or questions. Panelists should be listed and present a broad range of viewpoints. Aim for expertise, or select people who can be good representative of the viewpoints on the panel. Will the panel generate a lot of buzz? Overly focused or specialized panel topics will generate low scores under this set of reviewing criteria. **Panel review criteria: > Quality of Submission (1-5) > > > > Please assess the quality of the submission. Does the panel have a > coherent theme? Are the topics well-delineated? Are the points of interest > or controversy identified? Is the structure of the panel adequately > described and appropriate? > > > > ? 5 = High-quality work. Topic/questions are clearly delineated; the > approach is suitable and panel approach is well defined. Should create > discussion and interaction > > ? 4 = Solid work with a few shortcomings or flaws. Not much offered that > is controversial, but good coverage of the subject matter is likely > > ? 3 = Not clear this is anything new, but coverage of topic is useful > > ? 2 = Submission has possibilities, but they are unlikely to be realized > based on this submission > > ? 1 = Submission is confused and unfocused, not well thought out or > conceived > > > > Presentation Quality (1-5) > > > > Is the submission well-written and well-structured? > > > > ? 5 = Very well written, a pleasure to read, easy to follow, few > grammatical or typographical errors > > ? 4 = The essential content will be understood by most readers, but the > writing or figures could be improved > > ? 3 = The major points are clear, but the details are either obscured by > poor writing or are missing > > ? 2 = Important questions were hard to resolve even with effort; the > submission may need editing by a native speaker > > ? 1 = The submission is so poorly written that it is difficult to judge > the work > > > > Interest and Timeliness (1-5) > > > > Please assess the timeliness of the topic and the interest you expect it > to elicit. Will there be general excitement and buzz about the panel (high > interest)? Is there a solid contingent of the attendees who will show up to > see this (moderate interest)? Or will only a handful of specialists attend > (low interest)? > > > > ? 5 = Very timely. Should be of considerable interest to a large segment > of the attendees. > > ? 4 =Timely and of interest to many. May be coming topic of growing > interest > > ? 3 = Normal topic for ASIS&T meetings and of continuing interest > > ? 2 = Has been considered previously, perhaps exhaustively > > ? 1 = Neither timely nor likely to be of interest to ASIS&T attendees > > > > Panel Presenters (1-5) > > > > Are the panelists/presenters listed and are they appropriate experts to > discuss this topic? Do they represent a sufficiently broad set of > viewpoints? Or are these the wrong people for the job (i.e. the topic is of > interest, but they won't represent the viewpoints well)? > > > > ? 5 = Panelists/presenters are appropriate and diverse, should generate > discussion, thought and interaction. > > ? 4 = Solid panel > > ? 3 = Adequate panel, not controversial but well informed on topic > > ? 2 = weak panel, not likely to stimulate discussion, just recitation of > what is known already > > ? 1 = inadequate panel, appears to be unaware of developments > > > > Overall Assessment (1-5) > > > > Does this submission fit within the scope of ASIS&T, and should be > considered for inclusion in the annual meeting? How important is this > panel? Will there be interest in the panel/workshop/tutorial? Please > consider your ultimate recommendation carefully. Should the submission be > accepted or rejected? > > > > ? 5 = Groundbreaking (Strong accept): I'd fight to get it accepted > > ? 4 = Solid work (Accept): Unambiguous accept > > ? 3 = Lean towards Acceptance (Weak accept): Accept if there's room; I > would not argue if others wanted to reject it. > > ? 2 = Lean towards Rejection (Weak reject): I'd rather not see it in the > conference, but would not argue if others think it should get in > > ? 1 = Weak work (Reject): Unambiguous reject (is not of sufficient quality > for ASIST2013) > > > > Confidence in your review (1-5) > > > > ? 5 = Very Confident: I have understood the submission completely and > accurately (or I am sure about serious flaws in the submission), and I am > an expert on this topic ; I am very familiar (and am current) with the > literature in the area. > > ? 4 = Mostly confident: I have understood the main idea of the submission, > and I'm reasonably familiar with the topic, although I may not be > up-to-date on the literature and/or best practice. > > ? 3 = Confident > > ? 2 = Unsure: I have understood the main ideas in the submission, but I'm > unfamiliar with the literature and/or best practice in this area. > > ? 1 = I didn?t understand the submission. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathryn.labarre at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 09:36:55 2014 From: kathryn.labarre at gmail.com (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:36:55 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] LAST DAY to submit panels, papers, workshops and tutorials!!! Message-ID: Thanks to all SIGs who contacted the panel co-chairs with their intent to submit a SIG-sponsored panel. This is a reminder that the ACTUAL FORMAL deadline for formal submission for ASIST-AM is TODAY (even if you pre-submitted to the panel co-chairs)! You'll find the template and access to the submission system here: https://www.asis.org/asist2014/ *Important dates: Papers, Panels, Workshops & Tutorials * Submissions: April 30, 2014 Notifications: June 11, 2014 Final copies: July 15, 2014 *Submit * -- Kathryn La Barre Associate Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Tue Apr 29 09:37:17 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:37:17 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] Fwd: LAST DAY to submit panels, papers, workshops and tutorials!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to all SIGs who contacted the panel co-chairs with their intent to submit a SIG-sponsored panel. This is a reminder that the ACTUAL FORMAL deadline for formal submission for ASIST-AM is TODAY (even if you pre-submitted to the panel co-chairs)! You'll find the template and access to the submission system here: https://www.asis.org/asist2014/ *Important dates: Papers, Panels, Workshops & Tutorials * Submissions: April 30, 2014 Notifications: June 11, 2014 Final copies: July 15, 2014 *Submit * -- Kathryn La Barre Associate Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: