From klabarre at illinois.edu Sat Mar 15 11:51:41 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 10:51:41 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] Call for SIG-sponsored panels @ 77th ASIST annual meeting, 10/31-11/4 2014 Message-ID: Attention SIG officers! You have SIX weeks left to 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] Please do not hesitate to call on your SIG Cabinet officers for assistance! REMINDER: April 23 SIG officers must notify panel co-chairs Pnina Shachaf and Howard Rosenbaum of pending submissions of SIG-sponsored panels. Please note: (1) Sponsoring SIG(s), (2) Panel title, (3)Brief description. NOTE: This is one week prior to the official panel submission deadline. *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 Sat Mar 15 12:25:12 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 11:25:12 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] Call for SIG nominations for ASIST-AM panel reviewers ASAP!!! Message-ID: Greetings, The SIG Cabinet has been working hard to maintain SIG involvement in the upcoming ASIST annual meeting. You've just seen the panel submission reminder. SIGs are now invited to nominate expert panel reviewers. We especially encourage nominations of practitioners, as this group is typically underrepresented in the reviewing pool. Process: SIG officers should submit nominees directly to the Panel co-chairs Howard Rosenbaum and Pnina Fichman and to Kathryn La Barre, SIG Cabinet Chair (so I can report on SIG involvement in this initiative!) 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. I'm told by the conference chair, Jens-Erik Mai, that all reviewers will be asked to indicate their expertise according to a controlled vocabulary. Authors will tag submission with the same vocabulary. Assignments will match reviewer expertise and submission topics. As soon as possible, please submit the name and email address of your nominees to: Kathryn La Barre klabarre at illinois.edu Howard Rosenbaum hrosenba at indiana.edu Pnina Fichman fichman at indiana.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Wed Mar 19 12:23:54 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:23:54 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] SIG AWARD DEADLINES!! Start planning now... Message-ID: 2014 ASIS&T AWARDS are all open for nominations at http://asis.org/awards.html. Special Interest Group (SIG) Awards Nomination Deadline SIG of the Year Aug.15 http://asis.org/awards/sigoftheyear.html SIG Member of the Year Aug. 15 http://asis.org/awards/sigmemberoftheyear.html SIG Publication of the Year July 15 http://asis.org/awards/sigpublicationoftheyear.html For more information about the awards please see the SIG manual: http://www.asis.org/wiki/chapters-sigs/images/e/e6/SIG_Officer_Manual_2014_with_Appendices.pdf especially p. 22-23 and Appendix G: SIG Annual Activities Report and SIG of the Year Criteria and Checklist *APPENDIX F: **SIG OF THE YEAR AWARD GUIDELINES * *Guidelines:* *SIG of the Year * Now that your SIG is on its way to a year of strong programs, frequent communications and creative planning, it's time to start thinking about the SIG-of-the-Year Award. Each year since 1976, ASIS&T has honored the SIG whose professional accomplishments have made the greatest impact on the field of information science. The jury for the SIG of the Year consists of the SIG Cabinet Immediate Past Director, an ASIS&T Past President, and four other members, of whom at least one must be elected by the SIG Cabinet and at least one appointed by the ASIS&T Board. All jury members other than the Chair serve two year, staggered terms without immediate reappointment. If you haven't already appointed a member of your SIG to begin compiling a record of the year's accomplishments, now is the time to do so. Ask this person to keep a file of everything that your SIG does, including newsletters, directories, articles, program sessions, participation in other meetings, etc. Be sure to provide the person with the SIG-of-the-Year Award guidelines (APPENDIX F) and the Nominating Package Form (APPENDIX G). Then continue your planning for your best year yet. *SIG Publication of the Year * The Best SIG Publication Award was established in 1991. It is administered by the SIG Cabinet. The award shall consist of a certificate to be presented to the Communications Officer and the Chair of the winning SIG and other SIG members associated with the publication. The award shall be presented by the SIG Cabinet Director during the SIG Cabinet Meeting. The purpose of this award is to recognize the best publication produced by a SIG (or jointly by two or more SIGs) during the previous year (August-July). Any type of SIG Publication is eligible, including newsletters, transactions, directories, or other publications. To be considered, a publication must be in a format that is readable/usable by the jury members. Any electronic and/or self-published material should be sent to HQ in order to be considered. Each year, the Jury shall consider publications produced between August 1 of the previous year and July 31 of the current year. *SIG Member of the Year * The SIG Member-of-the-Year Award was established in 1991. It is administered by the SIG Cabinet. The purpose of the award is to recognize the service of an individual to the program of a particular SIG. It is given for significant contributions to the membership of the SIG through participation in and support of its events at the annual and mid-year meetings, its publications, and its other activities. Any ASIS&T member who is currently a member of the nominating SIG is eligible to receive the award. More than one awardee may be chosen in a given year. The same person may not receive the award in two consecutive years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klabarre at illinois.edu Fri Mar 28 08:46:46 2014 From: klabarre at illinois.edu (Kathryn La Barre) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Sig-l] Call for SIG nominations for ASIST-AM panel reviewers ASAP!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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. Thanks, Kathryn On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Kathryn La Barre wrote: > Greetings, > The SIG Cabinet has been working hard to maintain SIG involvement in the > upcoming ASIST annual meeting. You've just seen the panel submission > reminder. SIGs are now invited to nominate expert panel reviewers. We > especially encourage nominations of practitioners, as this group is > typically underrepresented in the reviewing pool. > > Process: > SIG officers should submit nominees directly to the Panel co-chairs Howard > Rosenbaum and Pnina Fichman and to Kathryn La Barre, SIG Cabinet Chair (so > I can report on SIG involvement in this initiative!) > > 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. > > I'm told by the conference chair, Jens-Erik Mai, that all reviewers will > be asked to indicate their expertise according to a controlled vocabulary. > Authors will tag submission with the same vocabulary. Assignments will > match reviewer expertise and submission topics. > > As soon as possible, please submit the name and email address of your > nominees to: > Kathryn La Barre klabarre at illinois.edu > Howard Rosenbaum hrosenba at indiana.edu > Pnina Fichman fichman at indiana.edu > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: