David, Ken et al,
I don't disagree with the main points made in the emails landing in my
in-tray concerning the reviewing process of "Commom Ground". Speaking as an
irregular reviewer on many design conferences and journals (although not
Common GRound 2002), I would concur that the process is effortful, time
consuming and attention to rigour and fairness is utmost in the reviewers
mind.
The ICED (international conference on engineering design) series of
conferences uses a number of paper category fields which might help
potential authors/reviewers of DRS-related events in the future. ICED
suggest that the author selects a category from the following list:
* Research Papers describing contributions and the latest results of
scientific work
* Industrial Papers signalling industrial needs for design
approaches/techniques, experiences and demands
* Design Education Papers, e.g. papers on new experiences from
education, training, teamwork, projects, cases, etc
* Speculations, new ideas and theories where the author has a free
hand to evolve new ideas without a claim for scientific validation
These categories may aid selection of papers and ensure that there is a
balance between "real" design research (whatever that may mean),
industrial-related studies, pedagogy in design, and papers that are "risky"
but may lead to real insights during the event or afterwards. I believe the
ICED contributions upon classification are reviewed with their peers.
Any comments?
Paul
Dr Paul Rodgers
Reader in Design
Napier University
Edinburgh
PS
I am yet to receive any reviewers' feedback on a full paper I submitted to
Common Ground. I have asked several times. Can anyone help?
|