[Sig-l] Call for SIG-sponsored panels @ 77th ASIST annual meeting, 10/31-11/4 2014

[Kathryn La Barre]

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: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sig-l/attachments/20140401/467d14f5/attachment-0001.html>