The Experts below are selected from a list of 22455 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

John Riedl - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work companion
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.

Steven Poltrock - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work companion
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.

Dominique Cardon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • les sciences sociales et les machines a cooperer une approche bibliographique du computer supported Cooperative Work cscw
    Réseaux. Communication - Technologie - Société, 1997
    Co-Authors: Dominique Cardon
    Abstract:

    La cooperation entre personnes distantes dans un cadre professionnel est aujourd'hui l'objet de l'attention convergente des informaticiens, des chercheurs en sciences sociales et des industriels. Les outils de cooperation synchrone sont elabores, depuis une quinzaine d'annees, au sein d'un forum, le Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) dont l'ambition est de contribuer a donner forme a ces outils, a definir leur usage et a inventer leur futur marche. En analysant successivement quatre perspectives disciplinaires differentes, l'ergonomie, la psychologie, l'ethnographie et la sociologie, on propose une analyse bibliographique des principaux travaux de sciences sociales au sein du CSCW. Il est notamment porte attention au role particulier joue au sein de cette communaute par l'approche ethnographique des pratiques Cooperatives qui a contribue a montrer comment les acteurs et les outils techniques se codeterminaient mutuellement au cours de l'interaction.

  • approches des usages en computer supported Cooperative Work cscw
    (Télé)communications 97. International colloquium, 1997
    Co-Authors: Dominique Cardon, C Licoppe
    Abstract:

    La cooperation entre personnes distantes dans un cadre professionnel est aujourd'hui l'objet de l'attention convergente des ingenieurs, des chercheurs en sciences sociales et des industriels. Parmi les differents outils en debat les machines a cooperer proposant des fonctionnalites synchrones (visio et PC-conference, mediaspace, outils de gestion de la reunion electronique, etc.) sont elaborees, depuis une quinzaine d'annees, au sein d'un forum, le Compufer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) dont l'ambition est de contribuer a donner forme a ces outils, a definir leur usage et a inventer leur futur marche. A partir d'une matrice de description de l'outillage conceptuel et de l'equipement protocolaire mis en oeuvre par differents paradigmes de sciences sociales (ergonomie, psychosociologie, ethnographie, sociologie) pour etudier les usages des machines a cooperer, il est propose une analyse raisonnee des principaux travaux du CSCW. L'ambition de cotte communication est de pointer ainsi les differents apports des sciences sociales au travail des concepteurs.

  • les sciences sociales et les machines a cooperer une approche bibliographique du computer supported coooperative Work cscw la cooperation dans les situations de travail
    Réseaux, 1997
    Co-Authors: Dominique Cardon
    Abstract:

    La cooperation entre personnes distantes dans un cadre professionnel est aujourd'hui l'objet de l'attention convergente des informaticiens, des chercheurs en sciences sociales et des industriels. Les outils de cooperation synchrone sont elabores, depuis une quinzaine d'annees, au sein d'un forum, le Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) dont l'ambition est de contribuer a donner forme a ces outils, a definir leur usage et a inventer leur futur marche. En analysant successivement quatre perspectives disciplinaires differentes, l'ergonomie, la psychologie, l'ethnographie et la sociologie, on propose une analyse bibliographique des principaux travaux de sciences sociales au sein du CSCW. Il est notamment porte attention au role particulier joue au sein de cette communaute par l'approche ethnographique des pratiques Cooperatives qui a contribue a montrer comment les acteurs et les outils techniques se codeterminaient mutuellement au cours de l'interaction

Carla Simone - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work companion
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.

Gloria Mark - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.

  • proceedings of the acm 2012 conference on computer supported Cooperative Work companion
    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2012
    Co-Authors: Steven Poltrock, Carla Simone, Jonathan Grudin, Gloria Mark, John Riedl
    Abstract:

    Constraint can spur creativity. Approaching the 26th anniversary of the CSCW conference, we were asked to move the submission deadline two months earlier to reduce the reviewing conflict with CHI 2012. In response, we used the additional time to innovate and to increase participation while maintaining or increasing quality, by allowing authors to revise and resubmit their papers and notes. Conference attendees and proceedings readers will ultimately assess the outcome, but overall the feedback from associate chairs, reviewers and authors has been very positive. Submissions increased 57% from CSCW 2011 to a record 290 papers and 125 notes. We increased the program committee to 67 associate chairs (ACs) to handle them; 21 were women and 20 were from outside North America. They comprised representatives from computer science, social media and social netWorks, psychology, anthropology, software engineering, management, and design. Fifty were from universities. Our process most resembled a journal special issue, with a submission deadline, a team of four reviewers, and one revision cycle under a firm time constraint (in this case five weeks). Each submission was assigned to two committee members, designated AC-Coordinator and ACReviewer. Each AC assigned one external reviewer. In the first round, each paper or note was blind-reviewed by the AC-Reviewer and the two external reviewers. Reviewers assessed the likelihood that it could be revised within one month to be acceptable. Based on the outcomes, submissions were considered 'conditional accept' (CA, 8.7%), 'revise=resubmit' (RR, 46.5%) or 'reject' (44.8%). In general, papers that received one or more positive assessments were offered the opportunity to revise. Papers that had no positive assessment in the first round were rejected. We based this decision on an analysis of CSCW 2011 data, which revealed that submissions that did not get an advocate in the initial reviewing had 0% chance of acceptance. Sixty percent of CSCW 2011 submissions had no advocate, compared to 45% of CSCW 2012 submissions. The difference is that the CSCW 2012 submissions had a month in which they could be improved. By immediately rejecting the 45% that had no chance, we streamlined and focused the process, and reduced the number of reviews per submission despite the revision cycle. The AC Coordinator relied on the reviews in providing written guidance to authors on how to revise RRs. Authors of RR and CA submissions had five weeks to prepare a revision and an explanation of how they had addressed reviewer concerns. Resubmissions of RRs underwent a full second review from the same four-reviewer team; most CAs were checked by just one AC. Reviewing teams were strongly encouraged to resolve decisions prior to the program committee meeting and indeed, only 6% of initial submissions had to be discussed in the meeting. The program committee split into two subgroups followed by a plenary session to make the final decisions. 127 papers and 37 notes, 39.5% of initial submissions, reached acceptable quality through revision. This is almost twice the number presented in any previous CSCW, in part due to record submissions. ACs and reviewers nominated papers and notes for consideration for Best Paper awards; 4 were selected, with 17 awarded Honorable Mention. The accepted Work represents diverse topics. Relatively new topics for CSCW include crowdsourcing, civic engagement, and social media; more traditional CSCW topics include distributed Work, coordination, ethnography, and collaborative software development. This collaborative effort was an example of computer supported Cooperative Work. The entire CSCW community provided input throughout the process-many ideas and changes came from outside of the committee. Committee members had to adapt to new ways of Working. Our analysis indicates that the Work required of reviewers and associate chairs did not exceed that of past years, and authors benefited from two rounds of feedback from committed ACs and reviewers. Our goal was to maintain a high quality threshold while enabling more papers to reach that threshold. We believe there are many benefits to a review process with more opportunity for constructive interaction between reviewers and authors. Authors benefit by learning more about the CSCW culture, and by producing papers that are better than they could have produced on their own. Reviewers benefit by seeing their Work lead to improved papers. The community benefits, because more of its members are successful at producing high quality research each year. As a community, we must consider new ways to assess conference quality-when a larger volume of high quality Work is produced, older metrics no longer hold. Considering the fraction of submitted Work that is of low quality to be a measure of conference quality is backwards. We need new measures of process quality and the resulting quality of accepted Work. Through continued innovation, CSCW will remain the top venue for leading edge research on collaboration and technology. As with any new process, mistakes were made and much was learned. We look forward to participating as community members in ongoing innovation. The other technical tracks contribute immeasurably to the program. A record number of interactive posters will be presented. The 14 Workshops drew a remarkable number of submissions. With demos, horizon, panels, videos, special sessions, and three plenary keynotes, CSCW 2012 is a great start to the second quarter-century of the CSCW conference.