[Sigmet-officers] Paper contest: number of reviewers, letter to reviewers

Thu Mar 17 09:00:23 EDT 2011

I would suggest Howard White. I'm sure he would be willing to do it.

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Dietmar Wolfram <dwolfram at uwm.edu> wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
>
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I am happy to review papers. I don't think it
> should be necessary to contact more than four external reviewers. Perhaps a
> couple of ASIST members from North America (maybe Drexel and Western
> Ontario) and a couple from Europe or Asia could be contacted. This will help
> to get them involved in the SIG.
>
>
>
> Dietmar
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Jonathan Levitt" <jonathan at levitt.net>
> *To: *sigmet-officers at asis.org
> *Sent: *Thursday, March 17, 2011 6:59:11 AM
> *Subject: *[Sigmet-officers] Paper contest: number of
> reviewers,        letter to reviewers
>
>   *
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your latest suggestions.  We have at least four reviewers
> amongst the officers and we have agreed to a maximum of four papers for
> reviewer. To me the most urgent matters are for us to decide how many
> external reviewers to enlist and for Chaoqun to contact them.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately we need to have enlisted reviewers before the April 10
> deadline, but we won’t know how many papers to review until after the April
> 10 deadline (I sought to address this problem in my March 11 email).  Nor
> do we know in advance what percentage of the people contacted will agree to
> review.  Has anyone any suggestions on how many external reviewers to
> enlist?
>
>
>
> Whilst we decide on how many external reviewers to enlist, I suggest that
> we prepare the letter to external reviewers.  Chaoqun, could you please
> draft the letter to external reviewers?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jonathan.
>
> *
>
>
>
> --- On *Mon, 14/3/11, Judit Bar-Ilan <barilaj at mail.biu.ac.il>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Judit Bar-Ilan <barilaj at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: [Sigmet-officers] Paper contest: appointment of reviewers
> To: sigmet-officers at asis.org
> Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 6:30
>
>  Dear All,
>
> It is very easy to set up evaluation criteria in Easy Chair. Overall
> evaluation (on a scale of -3 to 3) and reviewer's confidence (on a scale of
> 0 to 4) are built in, and so are two textboxes, one for comments to the
> authors and one for comments to the other program committee members. Instead
> of a filling in the textbox it is possible to upload a file with the
> comments . Additional rating criteria can be added easily. For the ISSI
> conference these were:
> Significance of problem, Originality, Quality of methodology/treatment,
> Validity of claims and interpretation, Integration into prior art, Quality
> of writing and Overall assessment - all of these on a scale of 1 to 5.
>
> Obviously for the authors the free text narrative is much more important,
> but for deciding on the winner(s), scoring might be helpful, although I
> often find it difficult to assign scores to the evaluation criteria.
>
> For the paper contest we are supposed to give more detailed comments than
> for the papers submitted to ISSI conference (some of my co-reviewers for
> ISSI have not commented at all, or wrote 1-2 sentences), so I still think
> that seriously reviewing 6 papers per reviewer is too much.
>
> Regards,
> Judit
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:52 PM, <sigmet-officers-request at asis.org<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sigmet-officers-request@asis.org>
> > wrote:
>
> Send Sigmet-officers mailing list submissions to
>        sigmet-officers at mail.asis.org<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sigmet-officers@mail.asis.org>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmet-officers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        sigmet-officers-request at mail.asis.org<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sigmet-officers-request@mail.asis.org>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        sigmet-officers-owner at mail.asis.org<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sigmet-officers-owner@mail.asis.org>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Sigmet-officers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Paper contest: appointment of reviewers (Jonathan Levitt)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:52:48 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jonathan Levitt <jonathan at levitt.net<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jonathan@levitt.net>
> >
> Subject: Re: [Sigmet-officers] Paper contest: appointment of reviewers
> To: sigmet-officers at mail.asis.org<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sigmet-officers@mail.asis.org>
> Message-ID: <<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=403991.8284.qm@web1206.biz.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> 403991.8284.qm at web1206.biz.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear all,
> ?
> Thanks Judit and Stasa for offering to review and for your interesting
> feedback.?
> ?
> I suggested six reviews per reviewer, as: (a) ISSI asked me to review six
> submissions and (b) the fewer the number of papers per reviewer the less
> liable their normalised score.? I am happy for us to opt for a four peepers
> per reviewer if we have a two stage review process; in the second stage the
> most highly rated papers from the first stage are re-reviewed.?
> ?
> Judit wrote ?What is the time frame for reviewing??? According to the call
> ?Authors are invited to submit manuscripts by midnight EST on Sunday, the
> 10th April 2011, to the following website ... We expect to have provided
> feedback on the submissions by the end of April 2011 and to have selected
> the winner and runner-up soon afterwards.?
> ?
> Stasa wrote ?Is our reviewing process going to be open-ended (similar to
> Scientometrics) where one just provides a narrative, or are we going to add
> more structure (similar to JASIST) where one needs to ?grade? the paper on a
> number of criteria we collectively determined are the most important in
> addition to the narrative??? To me the review process and criteria need to
> be consistent with the call.?
> ?
> Regarding the review process, according to the call ?The contest is
> designed, not only to recognize promising student research relating to the
> SIG, but also to provide feedback from specialists in the measurement of
> information production and use. Students will receive this feedback well
> before the deadline for submissions to the ASIS&T Annual Meeting? and ?There
> will be a winner, runner-up and, depending on the quantity of strong papers,
> a number of commended papers.? ?These extracts indicate that the SIG will
> (a) provide feedback on student research and (b) select a winner and
> runner-up. ?I suggest that in order to satisfy ?(a)? the reviewers will
> provide narrative feedback and in order to satisfy ?b? they provide an
> overall score for the paper that is then normalised.? Regarding the review
> criteria, according to the call ?The reviewers will particularly reward
> well-written, original research that has potential for publication in a
>  peer-reviewed journal or for presentation at a refereed conference?; this
> indicates that the review criteria should focus on (a) the quality of the
> writing and (b) the potential for publication of the research.
> ?
> Stasa wrote ?I agree with Dietmar's suggestion that we have two reviewers
> per paper and add the third only if there are notable differences between
> the two reviewers.? ?I don?t understand how a third reviewer would help us
> satisfy the stated criteria of the call and it is likely to lengthen the
> process.? Perhaps someone will explain.
> ?
> Stasa wrote ?Who/when is going to create a template for reviewing in case
> we want to go this route??? I think we need to agree on the criteria before
> we can create a template for reviewing.? I found my reviewer template for
> ISSI on the Easuchair system; I presume SIG/MET can arrange something
> similar.? Judit, do you know how the reviewer template was arranged for
> ISSI?
> ?
> Bes regards,
> Jonathan.
>
>
>
> --
> Judit Bar-Ilan
> Head of Department
> Department of Information Science
> Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel
> Tel: 972-3-5318351 Fax: 972-3-7384027
> email: barilaj at mail.biu.ac.il<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=barilaj@mail.biu.ac.il>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigmet-officers mailing list
> Sigmet-officers at mail.asis.org<http://uk.mc12.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Sigmet-officers@mail.asis.org>
> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmet-officers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigmet-officers mailing list
> Sigmet-officers at mail.asis.org
> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmet-officers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sigmet-officers mailing list
> Sigmet-officers at mail.asis.org
> http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigmet-officers
>
>

-- 
Cassidy R. Sugimoto, PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University Bloomington
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~sugimoto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmet-officers/attachments/20110317/38074501/attachment.html 