 |
 |
Thanks for these replies. I do usually let these kinds of things go, but this one was entirely over the top. Even worse, some of the comments were so entirely wrong that I felt especially frustrated, and authors are given no chance to respond. I could have easily shown some of the comments to be wrong or quite misguided. (Such as complaining that I don't cite a version of a document that is in progress but not available publicly, not even in draft.) I recently was a reviewer for a conference and we had someone go very negative over a proposal, rather arrogantly trying to show that the reviewer's knowledge was far superior to that of the author, but we did NOT let that go through to the author. In fact, we managed to show the reviewer that 1) many comments were wrong and 2) our role as reviewers is to make positive suggestions, not flagellate those making proposals and 3) a proposal can be interesting without being the most amazing treatise on the topic. We managed to get the proposal accepted and the author received a few constructive suggestions for the final copy, but nothing negative, and hopefully will never be subjected to the kinds of comments that were in the review. Note that these two conferences used the same conference software and therefore I know that there is the possibility for a separation between internal reviews and what is sent to authors. This is yet another kind of #meToo - me, too, has been treated like dirt by arrogant reviewers who do not at all know as much as they think they do. I am committed to bringing anything I see or experience to light because that is the only way that we can stop it from happening to others. I'm also committed to speaking out on the degree that a conference shows itself to be welcoming. If it isn't welcoming to me, a pretty "banal" older white librarian, who else might feel unwelcome? Thanks, again, kc On 8/22/19 10:01 AM, Sarah Melton wrote: > I also don't typically weigh in here, but I feel compelled to mention that > there are conferences that have given a lot of thought to the problem of > uncollegial reviews. The Digital Humanities 2020 conference > <https://dh2020.adho.org/>, for example, offers extensive guidelines for > both submitters *and* reviewers. They are experimenting with an open peer > review system, and the conference organizers have written a thoughtful > explanation of why > <https://dh2020.adho.org/guidelines/the-open-peer-review-process/>, and I > encourage anyone who is involved with any kind of review process to take a > look. > > We're all responsible for creating the environments and institutions we > want to see. I'd encourage some self-reflection here about why we equate > certain types of criticism with intellectual rigor. > > All the best, > Sarah > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 12:50 PM Randal Harrison <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I don’t usually weigh in here, but, in support of Karen’s (whom I do not >> know personally) original post: >> >> You know, when I have a bad time, I sometimes share it with colleagues. So >> I support hearing about it when another academic had a particularly bad >> experience. And it certainly doesn’t make up my mind automatically when >> someone expresses an opinion at me. Nor did I think her comments were >> particularly rancorous. >> >> Sharing is caring. Sorry you felt spanked, Chairs of MTSR 2019 Conference, >> but then your response seemed either overweening, perhaps “chairsplainin’,” >> and maybe a little Trump-y? Why not apologize if there was a disconnect and >> then hold out the olive branch? >> >> Randy >> …… >> >> Randal Sean Harrison, Ph.D. >> Emerging Technologies Librarian >> >> University of Notre Dame >> 158 Hesburgh Library >> Notre Dame, IN 46556 >> >> (574) 631-0312 >> [log in to unmask] >> randalseanharrison.com <http://randalseanharrison.com/> >> >> ⌖ Map to my office <http://randalseanharrison.com/new_office/map.png> >> ⌖ Make a meeting <https://randalseanharrison.youcanbook.me/> >> >> >> >>> On Aug 22, 2019, at 12:25 PM, Lina Bountouri <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On behalf of the Chairs of MTSR 2019 Conference >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Dear list members, >>> >>> We apologise for the long email. >>> >>> We apologize also that we have to reply to an email of a member in the >>> list, but this is not about saying that “we are right, you are wrong”, or >>> talk about why an author felt that the reviewers were “nasty” to a paper, >>> but about giving the facts about this issue, and protect the MTSR >> Community >>> (http://www.mtsr-conf.org/). >>> >>> MTSR is an inter-disciplinary conference, which brings together >> academics, >>> researchers, practitioners, librarians, etc. in the specialized fields of >>> metadata, ontologies and semantics research. Professionals from more than >>> 40 countries are involved. We feel that the comments of Karen Coyle >> insult >>> us personally and professionally and we have to reply by giving only >> facts. >>> >>> Conferences are vibrant events and no one says that mistakes never >> happen. >>> But If an author has any problem with a conference, a conference track >> or a >>> review process, the professional way to solve or discuss about it is >>> firstly to directly contact the Conference, try to find a solution or >> get a >>> proper explanation, and then, if s/he is not happy and go publicly to any >>> professional list. >>> >>> The International Conference on Metadata and Semantics Research (MTSR) >> goes >>> back to 2005. Since then the community has grown and become strong. >>> Proceedings have been published by the Springer's CCIS (Communications in >>> Computer and Information Science) Series. The acceptance rate of full >>> research papers for both the general session and tracks was 24.6% for >> MTSR >>> 2018. The rate of downloads of the proceedings and chapters is very high >>> according to Bookmetrix. >>> >>> When an author submits a paper to a conference is very important to read >>> the CfP and to read carefully also the Track CfP. Choosing the wrong >> Track >>> could lead to rejection. Authors that do not follow the required >> standards >>> set by the Conference and the Publisher could lead to rejection. Authors >>> that do not follow the instructions to authors, namely page length, >>> Publisher’s template, references, etc. could lead to rejection. In this >>> case, the author submitted a paper about FRBR in Jun 15, 19:23 in the >> track >>> “Knowledge IT Artifacts (KITA) in professional communities and >>> aggregations”. The paper was submitted anonymously, went through a blind >>> peer-reviewed process, and we had an outcome. >>> >>> After the review process an independent committee went through all the >>> procedures in order to check that the conference quality criteria have >> been >>> implemented during the review process. In case of this paper all the >>> procedures that followed were accurate. Nevertheless, the committee >> decided >>> to send the paper for a second round of review in the light of the >> comments >>> made by the reviewers. Two experts in the field did the second round of >>> reviews. In total the paper had 4 reviews. >>> >>> We always, as MTSR community, value the work of all authors. By sending >>> this paper after receiving two rejections to a second group of expert >>> reviewers for a second round of reviews, shows that MTSR Conference takes >>> seriously the review process and values the work of researchers. MTSR >>> evaluates all papers on their timeliness and novelty; significance to the >>> field and potential impact on the course of future work in the area; >>> document structure; clarity; quality of text; relevance to MTSR >> Conference >>> and methodology. >>> >>> Two final points: >>> >>> a) When an author submits a paper to a conference or a journal s/he >> expects >>> that her/his work is to be evaluated. >>> >>> b) MTSR will continue to work closely with the Community, PC members and >>> reviewers in order to improve further the quality of reviews, keeping the >>> high standards in the review process and the independent voice of >> reviewers. >>> >>> We will not respond to any other email concerning this issue. If you want >>> to have a vibrant experience with MTSR Community and Conference, we >> suggest >>> that you attend a conference or submit in the future your research work. >>> >>> Karen, we invite you to attend an MTSR Conference, and we are sure that >> you >>> will change your opinion about it. We feel that this is not fair for all >>> parties. >>> >>> We are looking forward to working with you. >>> >>> With best regards, >>> >>> Chairs of MTSR 2019 Conference >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019, 18:34 Karen Coyle, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> I made the terrible mistake of submitting to this conference, so I >>>> wanted to let others know about my experience. The "review" that I >>>> received consisted of a 25-point nastygram, dripping sarcasm. I was >>>> utterly shocked, to say the least. This is without a doubt a conference >>>> that needs a Code of Conduct, but I'm not holding out hope for it. >>>> >>>> Clearly one that I will avoid in the future, and I regret having had >>>> contact with this community. The contrast with Code4Lib is like 0 to 1. >>>> Oh, boy, and I glad to be here! >>>> >>>> kc >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: [CODE4LIB] 1st C4P - SPECIAL TRACK on METADATA & SEMANTICS for >>>> CULTURAL COLLECTIONS & APPLICATIONS >>>> Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 08:39:16 +0200 >>>> From: Lina Bountouri <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Reply-To: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> >>>> 1st Call for Papers, apologies for cross-posting >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> SPECIAL TRACK on METADATA & SEMANTICS for CULTURAL COLLECTIONS & >>>> APPLICATIONS <http://www.ionio.gr/labs/dbis/mtsr2019/> >>>> >>>> Part of the 13th International Conference on Metadata and Semantics >>>> Research (MTSR 2019) <http://mtsr-conf.org/home> >>>> October 28 – 31 2019, Rome, Italy >>>> >>>> *Submission deadline: June 16th, 2019* >>>> Proceedings will be published in *Springer CCIS series >>>> <http://www.springer.com/series/7899>* >>>> >>>> AIM AND SCOPE >>>> Cultural Heritage collections are essential knowledge infrastructures >> that >>>> provide a solid >>>> representation of the historical background of human communities. These >>>> knowledge infrastructures >>>> are constructed from and integrate cultural information derived from >>>> diverse memory institutions, >>>> mainly libraries, archives and museums. Each individual community has >> spent >>>> a lot of effort >>>> in order to develop, support and promote its own systems, tools and >>>> metadata for the management >>>> of cultural information, mainly related to its particular resources and >>>> use. >>>> >>>> In this framework, the management of the cultural information has to >> deal >>>> with challenges related to >>>> (i) metadata modeling, specification, standardization, extraction, >>>> (semantic) enrichment, mapping, >>>> integration, effective use, and evaluation, (ii) knowledge >> representation >>>> as conceptualization to >>>> provide the context for unambiguously interpreting metadata, and (iii) >>>> information integration from >>>> different contexts for the provision of integrated access, reuse and >>>> advanced services to users. >>>> >>>> At the same time, there are also inter-domain efforts targeted to >>>> semantically align data (research >>>> data, educational data, public sector information etc.) to cultural >>>> information. New challenges are >>>> also emerged from the need to incorporate cultural information into the >> new >>>> publication paradigms, >>>> where a variety of resources (data, metadata, processes, results, etc) >> are >>>> linked and integrated, >>>> providing better shareability and reusability. Currently, Linked (Open) >>>> Data, as part of the >>>> Semantic Web Technology, is having a major role in modernizing cultural >>>> heritage collections. >>>> Providing to users the possibility to re-use and integrate data into >> their >>>> own systems is currently >>>> more than a need, given that transparency and access to information is a >>>> prerequisite. A critical >>>> factor to the effectiveness of many aspects of all the above efforts is >> the >>>> quality of metadata, >>>> as interpreted by its context and use and evaluated by the proper >> measures >>>> and methods. Many >>>> institutions and aggregate infrastructures are dealing with the poor >>>> quality of metadata that >>>> inevitably results in poor integration, search and reuse, while their >>>> enrichment, in terms of >>>> contextualization, co-referencing, alignment, etc, is really >> challenging. >>>> >>>> The aim of this Special Track is to maintain a dialogue where >> researchers >>>> and practitioners working >>>> on all the aspects of the cultural information will come together and >>>> exchange ideas about open issues >>>> at all stages of the cultural heritage information life cycle. The track >>>> also welcomes works related to >>>> semantics and applications for new approaches to cultural information >>>> publication and sharing, as well >>>> as to interlinking to other datasets published in the Semantic Web >>>> universe. >>>> >>>> >>>> TOPICS >>>> The papers in this special track should be original and of high quality, >>>> addressing issues in areas >>>> such as: >>>> * Cultural Heritage metadata models, standards, ontologies, knowledge >>>> organization and representation systems >>>> * Cultural Heritage information integration, interoperability and >> mappings >>>> * Automated extraction of metadata, entities, and patterns from Cultural >>>> Heritage resources >>>> * Metadata manual or automated (Semantic) enrichment and search >>>> * Metadata quality metrics, tools and services >>>> * Linked Open Data approaches in the Cultural Heritage domain >>>> * Publication, linking and citation of Cultural Heritage information and >>>> resources >>>> * Large volume content management >>>> * 3D models-indexing, storage and retrieval approaches >>>> * Infrastructures for sharing content >>>> * Digital Curation workflows and models >>>> * Provenance and preservation metadata for Cultural Heritage digital >>>> resources >>>> >>>> SUBMISSION GUIDELINES >>>> Authors can submit either full papers (12 pages) or short papers (6 >> pages). >>>> Submitted papers have to >>>> follow the LNCS proceedings formatting style and guidelines >>>> < >>>> >> https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs/conference-proceedings-guidelines?countryChanged=true >>>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> Submissions should be original and not previously submitted, published >> and >>>> under review to other >>>> Conferences or Journals.The submitted papers will undergo the same peer >>>> review as the submissions >>>> for MTSR 2019 and accepted contributions will be published in the MTSR >> 2019 >>>> proceedings (Springer CCIS series <http://www.springer.com/series/7899 >>> ). >>>> Authors of accepted papers will be asked to register to the Conference >> and >>>> present their work. >>>> >>>> Selected papers might be considered for a revised and extended version >> to >>>> be published in a range of >>>> international journals, including the International Journal of Metadata, >>>> Semantics and Ontologies >>>> <https://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijmso> >>>> (Inderscience), and Data Technologies and Applications >>>> < >>>> >> http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=dta >>>>> >>>> (previously published as Program, Emerald). >>>> More information on submission can be found at the MTSR 2019 call for >>>> papers web page <http://mtsr-conf.org/call-for-papers>. >>>> >>>> >>>> IMPORTANT DATES >>>> June 16th, 2019: Submission deadline >>>> July 28th, 2019: Notification of decision (Acceptance/Rejection) >>>> August 25th, 2019: Camera-ready papers due >>>> October 28th – October 31st, 2019: Conference at the Marconi University >> in >>>> Rome, Italy >>>> >>>> >>>> SPECIAL TRACK CHAIRS >>>> * Michalis Sfakakis, Dept. Archives, Library Science and Museology, >> Ionian >>>> University, Corfu, Greece ([log in to unmask]) >>>> * Lina Bountouri, Dept. Archives, Library Science and Museology, Ionian >>>> University, Corfu, Greece and NATO HQ, Brussels, Belgium ( >>>> [log in to unmask], >>>> [log in to unmask]) >>>> >>>> >>>> PROGRAM COMMITTEE (TBA) >>>> >> > > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600