FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2912663010> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2912663010 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." @default.
• W2912663010 created "2019-02-21" @default.
• W2912663010 creator A5028357447 @default.
• W2912663010 creator A5029791462 @default.
• W2912663010 creator A5045528013 @default.
• W2912663010 creator A5048608909 @default.
• W2912663010 creator A5059571538 @default.
• W2912663010 date "2012-02-11" @default.
• W2912663010 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2912663010 title "Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work" @default.
• W2912663010 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2912663010 type Work @default.
• W2912663010 sameAs 2912663010 @default.
• W2912663010 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W2912663010 countsByYear W29126630102012 @default.
• W2912663010 countsByYear W29126630102013 @default.
• W2912663010 countsByYear W29126630102014 @default.
• W2912663010 countsByYear W29126630102015 @default.
• W2912663010 countsByYear W29126630102016 @default.
• W2912663010 countsByYear W29126630102019 @default.
• W2912663010 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2912663010 hasAuthorship W2912663010A5028357447 @default.
• W2912663010 hasAuthorship W2912663010A5029791462 @default.
• W2912663010 hasAuthorship W2912663010A5045528013 @default.
• W2912663010 hasAuthorship W2912663010A5048608909 @default.
• W2912663010 hasAuthorship W2912663010A5059571538 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C11012388 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C198439703 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C2775907273 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C2776036281 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C518677369 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C11012388 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C127413603 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C136764020 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C15744967 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C161191863 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C17744445 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C18762648 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C198439703 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C199539241 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C2775907273 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C2776036281 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C41008148 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C509550671 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C518677369 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C71924100 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C77805123 @default.
• W2912663010 hasConceptScore W2912663010C78519656 @default.
• W2912663010 hasLocation W29126630101 @default.
• W2912663010 hasOpenAccess W2912663010 @default.
• W2912663010 hasPrimaryLocation W29126630101 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W136066119 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W1505532142 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W152547054 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W1526715104 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W1530404542 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W1563579290 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W1568919821 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W1579406079 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W1596249140 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2081280627 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2167024389 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2262972580 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2623995625 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2911833426 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2911896306 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2913017407 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2913672609 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W2914850302 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W3022307797 @default.
• W2912663010 hasRelatedWork W91851626 @default.
• W2912663010 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2912663010 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2912663010 magId "2912663010" @default.
• W2912663010 workType "article" @default.