Difference between revisions of "CSCW 2004"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| + | ==Submissions== | ||
| + | The CSCW conference is interdisciplinary in nature, typically drawing submissions from diverse fields (e.g., computer science, psychology, anthropology, business, education) and sectors (e.g., industry, academia, government). Given this diversity of perspectives, it might be unclear how to write a successful paper that reaches out to the CSCW audience. Toward that end, we want to communicate to prospective authors (and to reviewers of CSCW papers) what makes a successful paper submission to CSCW. By "successful", we mean a submission that presents the work with all the information needed to get a fair review. If the work is innovative and interesting to the CSCW community, then successful submissions should be accepted. But, if the review process finds that the work does not meet the quality threshold for accepted papers, then a successful submission will still generate constructive feedback to the authors. We don't want these guidelines to constrain the creativity and freedom of authors. However, we thought these guidelines would help make the review process a constructive experience where authors and reviewers work together to create the best quality conference possible. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A useful place to start discussing successful CSCW submissions is the review process. It's important to note that CSCW reviews papers and notes on an "as-is" basis. The review process does not include enough time for a second review after the author has made requested changes, so reviewers must make a decision whether the submission in its current form is an acceptable CSCW publication. (However, reviewers often do make suggestions, and authors of accepted papers and notes are encouraged to revise their work before a final draft is required.) Describing future work (or work expected to be completed before the conference) is often interesting, but you should not rely on any unfinished work to gain acceptance to the conference. A common reviewer comment is that a submission was premature and should be resubmitted when more of the work is completed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Paper and note submissions will be reviewed by at least three people from a panel of international reviewers. Although the wording of the review form changes from year, the review form essentially asks: | ||
| + | *Is the work new, significant, and important to the CSCW community? | ||
| + | *Is the thesis sufficiently supported with data or analyses? | ||
| + | *Is the work clearly and concisely described? | ||
| + | |||
| + | For Papers: | ||
| + | A common reviewer comment is that an obvious or important issue with the work was not addressed by the authors. Papers have also been criticized for not providing enough evidence or sound reasoning for their claims. A similar concern is not justifying the design choices and not explaining why certain design features were included. In summary, you should not only explain what you did, but why you did it so that readers (including reviewers) can be convinced that you made appropriate choices. Explaining your choices can also stimulate more research by helping others see alternative approaches. | ||
| − | + | One way to support your ideas, one that CSCW strongly prefers, is to include some evaluation or application of the ideas. CSCW is not especially interested in descriptions of new technology without any evaluation of its usefulness to people. If it is not possible to conduct an evaluation with real users, then find some other way to indicate how your work benefits people. For example, you might spend more time explaining how the system was motivated by user needs and how it addresses those needs. CSCW is a conference about people using technology, and reviewers are looking for serious consideration of this central issue. | |
| + | |||
| + | It's important to pick an appropriate evaluation methodology for the task and to conduct it appropriately. Reviewers often cited inappropriate methodology choices (e.g., using a quantitative method for something that has qualitative effects) and improper uses of the method (e.g., not enough subjects, inappropriate statistical analyses). | ||
| + | Finally, referees sometime complain that authors have failed to cite clearly relevant work previously published in CSCW-related proceedings and journals. This problem is often found with authors from areas outside CSCW who may not know the CSCW literature. Look through previous proceedings to see how the ideas in your thesis relate to previous papers. | ||
==Important Dates== | ==Important Dates== | ||
| + | Preliminary Paper submissions and full Notes submissions due: March 19, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Full Paper submissions due: March 22, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Videos, Tutorial Proposals and Workshop Proposals due: April 30, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Panel proposals due: May 21, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Notification of accepted Papers, Notes, Videos, Panels, and Tutorials: June 4, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Notification of accepted Workshops: June 14, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Interactive Posters due: June 25, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Demonstration Proposals and Doctoral Colloquium submissions due: July 9, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Final version of Videos and Video Abstracts due: August 2, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Notification of accepted Interactive Posters: August 9, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Notification of accepted Demonstrations and Doctoral Colloquium submissions: August 13, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Final version of Papers and Notes due: August 30, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Workshop position papers due: September 17, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Final versions of Interactive Posters due: September 25, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Final versions of Panel abstracts, descriptions and position statements due. Tutorial notes due: September 28, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Doctoral Colloquium final abstracts due: October 1, 2004<br> | ||
| + | Demonstrations final abstracts due: October 8, 2004<br> | ||
| + | CSCW 2004 conference begins: November 6, 2004 | ||
Latest revision as of 12:35, 18 December 2020
| CSCW 2004 | |
|---|---|
2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
| |
| Event in series | CSCW |
| Dates | 2004/11/06 (iCal) - 2004/11/10 |
| Homepage: | http://web.archive.org/web/20070807183615/http://www.acm.org/cscw2004/ |
| Location | |
| Location: | Chicago, Illinois, USA |
Loading map... | |
| Papers: | Submitted 176 / Accepted 53 (30.1 %) |
| Committees | |
| Organizers: | Daniel Mittleman |
| General chairs: | Jim Herbsleb, Gary Olson |
| PC chairs: | Christine Halverson, Loren Terveen |
| Workshop chairs: | Andreas Girgensohn, Alison Lee |
| Panel Chair: | Tom Finholt, Pamela Hinds |
| Seminars Chair: | Jonathan Grudin, Steven Poltrock |
| Demo chairs: | Wayne Lutters, David McDonald, Jonathan Trevor |
| Keynote speaker: | Mitchell Kapor, Lawrence Lessig |
| Table of Contents | |
Contents | |
The ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) 2004
Topics
- Innovations and experiences with Intranets, the Internet, WWW
- Innovative installations: CSCW and the arts
- Innovative technologies and architectures to support group activity, awareness and telepresence
- Social and organizational effects of introducing technologies
- Theoretical aspects of coordination and communication
- Methodologies and tools for design and analysis of collaborative practices
- Ethnographic and case studies of work practice
- Working with and through collections of heterogeneous technologies
- Emerging issues for global systems
Submissions
The CSCW conference is interdisciplinary in nature, typically drawing submissions from diverse fields (e.g., computer science, psychology, anthropology, business, education) and sectors (e.g., industry, academia, government). Given this diversity of perspectives, it might be unclear how to write a successful paper that reaches out to the CSCW audience. Toward that end, we want to communicate to prospective authors (and to reviewers of CSCW papers) what makes a successful paper submission to CSCW. By "successful", we mean a submission that presents the work with all the information needed to get a fair review. If the work is innovative and interesting to the CSCW community, then successful submissions should be accepted. But, if the review process finds that the work does not meet the quality threshold for accepted papers, then a successful submission will still generate constructive feedback to the authors. We don't want these guidelines to constrain the creativity and freedom of authors. However, we thought these guidelines would help make the review process a constructive experience where authors and reviewers work together to create the best quality conference possible.
A useful place to start discussing successful CSCW submissions is the review process. It's important to note that CSCW reviews papers and notes on an "as-is" basis. The review process does not include enough time for a second review after the author has made requested changes, so reviewers must make a decision whether the submission in its current form is an acceptable CSCW publication. (However, reviewers often do make suggestions, and authors of accepted papers and notes are encouraged to revise their work before a final draft is required.) Describing future work (or work expected to be completed before the conference) is often interesting, but you should not rely on any unfinished work to gain acceptance to the conference. A common reviewer comment is that a submission was premature and should be resubmitted when more of the work is completed.
Paper and note submissions will be reviewed by at least three people from a panel of international reviewers. Although the wording of the review form changes from year, the review form essentially asks:
- Is the work new, significant, and important to the CSCW community?
- Is the thesis sufficiently supported with data or analyses?
- Is the work clearly and concisely described?
For Papers: A common reviewer comment is that an obvious or important issue with the work was not addressed by the authors. Papers have also been criticized for not providing enough evidence or sound reasoning for their claims. A similar concern is not justifying the design choices and not explaining why certain design features were included. In summary, you should not only explain what you did, but why you did it so that readers (including reviewers) can be convinced that you made appropriate choices. Explaining your choices can also stimulate more research by helping others see alternative approaches.
One way to support your ideas, one that CSCW strongly prefers, is to include some evaluation or application of the ideas. CSCW is not especially interested in descriptions of new technology without any evaluation of its usefulness to people. If it is not possible to conduct an evaluation with real users, then find some other way to indicate how your work benefits people. For example, you might spend more time explaining how the system was motivated by user needs and how it addresses those needs. CSCW is a conference about people using technology, and reviewers are looking for serious consideration of this central issue.
It's important to pick an appropriate evaluation methodology for the task and to conduct it appropriately. Reviewers often cited inappropriate methodology choices (e.g., using a quantitative method for something that has qualitative effects) and improper uses of the method (e.g., not enough subjects, inappropriate statistical analyses).
Finally, referees sometime complain that authors have failed to cite clearly relevant work previously published in CSCW-related proceedings and journals. This problem is often found with authors from areas outside CSCW who may not know the CSCW literature. Look through previous proceedings to see how the ideas in your thesis relate to previous papers.
Important Dates
Preliminary Paper submissions and full Notes submissions due: March 19, 2004
Full Paper submissions due: March 22, 2004
Videos, Tutorial Proposals and Workshop Proposals due: April 30, 2004
Panel proposals due: May 21, 2004
Notification of accepted Papers, Notes, Videos, Panels, and Tutorials: June 4, 2004
Notification of accepted Workshops: June 14, 2004
Interactive Posters due: June 25, 2004
Demonstration Proposals and Doctoral Colloquium submissions due: July 9, 2004
Final version of Videos and Video Abstracts due: August 2, 2004
Notification of accepted Interactive Posters: August 9, 2004
Notification of accepted Demonstrations and Doctoral Colloquium submissions: August 13, 2004
Final version of Papers and Notes due: August 30, 2004
Workshop position papers due: September 17, 2004
Final versions of Interactive Posters due: September 25, 2004
Final versions of Panel abstracts, descriptions and position statements due. Tutorial notes due: September 28, 2004
Doctoral Colloquium final abstracts due: October 1, 2004
Demonstrations final abstracts due: October 8, 2004
CSCW 2004 conference begins: November 6, 2004
| Acceptance rate | 30.1 + |
| Accepted papers | 53 + |
| Acronym | CSCW 2004 + |
| End date | November 10, 2004 + |
| Event in series | CSCW + |
| Event type | Conference + |
| Has Keynote speaker | Mitchell Kapor + and Lawrence Lessig + |
| Has OC member | Tom Finholt + and Pamela Hinds + |
| Has coordinates | 41° 52' 32", -87° 37' 28"Latitude: 41.875561111111 Longitude: -87.624422222222 + |
| Has coordinator | Daniel Mittleman + |
| Has demo chair | Wayne Lutters +, David McDonald + and Jonathan Trevor + |
| Has general chair | Jim Herbsleb + and Gary Olson + |
| Has location city | Chicago + |
| Has location country | Category:USA + |
| Has location state | Illinois + |
| Has program chair | Christine Halverson + and Loren Terveen + |
| Has tutorial chair | Jonathan Grudin + and Steven Poltrock + |
| Has workshop chair | Andreas Girgensohn + and Alison Lee + |
| Homepage | http://web.archive.org/web/20070807183615/http://www.acm.org/cscw2004/ + |
| IsA | Event + |
| Start date | November 6, 2004 + |
| Submitted papers | 176 + |
| Title | 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work + |
