 |
 |
Rosan, It has already been suggested that David Durling and I put together some documentation on the process of putting together the conference, so I will save a full discussion for later. However I will try to answer some of your concerns briefly, (with apologies to members who are familiar with the established refereeing practice). All full papers were refereed by at least two of the international panel. Names were removed from the documents, so that referees' judgements were 'blind'. Where there appeared to be discrepancies in the referees' judgements, papers were further refereed by a third member of the panel. Then, in general, the highest rated papers were selected for presentation. However, with a restricted number of presentation slots, many very high quality papers could not be included. Selecting emergent themes from an excess of excellent papers does however introduce a sense in which a conference is 'curated', and that is what we were trying to convey in notifying authors whose papers were not selected. You are absolutely right, however; the word 'theme' in the section you quote would have been better as 'themes'. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you also appear to ask for specific feedback on your individual paper; I hope you will appreciate this is not the forum to provide that. Anonymous referees comments can be passed on to you if you care to write off-line. I hope this helps your understanding of the refereeing process. Regards, John Shackleton > Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 08:36:56 -0600 > From: Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Building the Field? on which ground? > i really don't mean to put you on the spot or try to be a pain in the neck nor am i > being bitter. but i was under the impression that my paper to the conference was > rejected because it did not 'fit' into the 'theme' of the conference. (see quote > below:) > > "We have a restricted number of presentation slots in this > conference, and we eventually had rather more full papers than > can be presented. The editors have therefore had to make some > difficult decisions about which papers to take forward to > publication, taking into account the best fit to the conference > theme. <rest of quote snipped - JPS> > could you explain how the process of choosing the papers are done then? > > rosan John Shackleton Design Research Centre Brunel University, UK