Re: [Pc2023] Next step in the DH2023 preparation process: selection of accepted submissions

Dear Diane, at this point in the process, we're exploring different scenarios and have come up with 6 parallel sessions as a starting point for discussion. For Anne and myself, as Chairs of the PC, it is important to find the right balance between being inclusive and assuring that the conference meets qualitative standards and scholarly expectations of our communities. This is not easy and will take some time, but I can assure you that we will consider the maximum number of submissions that we can take without sacrificing the quality of the conference. The meta reviews are an important part of this process and they may help us expand the range of accepted submissions. Many thanks to those who have already completed their meta reviews, and a kind reminder to other members of the PC to help us with the remaining meta reviews. Regarding the numbers that you have quoted — they do not include the number of posters yet. We are planning to accept up to 120 submissions as posters, which will also change the overall acceptance rates for the conference. We will only be able to properly look at the posters and paper-to-poster shifts after we have a clearer cutoff for other types of submissions. This will happen after March 1st. We hope this explains a little better where we are right now and the direction we're aiming for in the coming weeks. All best, Toma and Anne -- Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities http://humanistika.org

21.02.2023, в 02:40, Diane Jakacki написал(а):

Hello all, Thanks again for all of your work getting us to this point in the conference planning process. I know it's intense.

In addition to Richard’s observation about wide-ranging review scores, I’d like to offer a statistical perspective. My calculations could be off, but based on the number of submissions received in ConfTool and the cutoff proposed, the rate of acceptance appears to look like this:

Long presentations: 78 out of 234 (33%) Short presentations: 100 out of 292 (34%) Panels: 14 out of 43 (32.5%) Workshops: 15 out of 33 (45%)

By comparison, an average of acceptance rates from the 2015-2019 conferences looks like this:

Long presentations: 42% Short presentations: 46% Panels: 76% Workshops: 64%

Note that in some ways these acceptance rates are complicated because of the location and venue size of each conference and the options for submission types (in some cases ‘panels’ included other formats, like ‘forums’). Certainly it is the prerogative of the PC to set the standard for the academic program, and that is a very complex calculus. It is worth considering, though, that there is a direct connection between conference acceptance and conference attendance (especially now, with funding so scarce). In the bid that Georg and Walter submitted, I believe there was room for 8 parallel sessions. Is that still the case? Is there room to expand the number of concurrent sessions, or is the maximum number of available rooms now 6? I ask to better understand if the cap on parallel sessions is a logistical one.

Thanks again for all that you are doing! and best wishes, Diane

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 7:09 PM Richard Tsai mailto:thtsai@g.ncu.edu.tw> wrote:

...

Dear Anne, Toma, pc colleagues,

I wanted to share my thoughts on the inclusion of papers with only one extreme low score in the conference. In my view, even though these papers may have received one extreme low score, they may still have other strengths and valuable contributions to the field that make them worth considering for inclusion. I believe that it is important to evaluate each submission holistically and not base our decisions solely on one review. Thank you for your consideration.

Best,

Richard

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 9:25 PM Toma Tasovac mailto:ttasovac@humanistika.org> wrote:

...

Dear Georg,

Anne and I had a long meeting on Friday and we looked at a bunch of submissions around the threshold. I don't have our notes with me, but if we didn't include those papers that you mention, that's probably because we performed our own oral "meta-review"... and we put on the list only those that required an extra pair of eyes.

Anne and I are meeting next tomorrow to handle changes to submission types (i.e. paper to poster etc.) and will be in touch about those separately.

All best, Toma

-- ====================================================== Richard Tzong-Han Tsai

The President of the Board of Directors of the Taiwanese Association for Digital Humanities (TADH) Third Term CEO, Center for GIS, RCHSS, Academia Sinica Taiwan Professor, Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University Tel.: +886-3-4227151 ext. 35203 Fax.: +886-3-4222681 Email: thtsai@g.ncu.edu.tw mailto:thtsai@csie.ncu.edu.tw_______________________________________________ PC2023 mailing list PC2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org mailto:PC2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org http://lists.lists.digitalhumanities.org/mailman/listinfo/pc2023

-- Diane Jakacki, Ph.D. Digital Scholarship Coordinator Affiliate Faculty in Comparative & Digital Humanities Bucknell University diane.jakacki@bucknell.edu mailto:diane.jakacki@bucknell.edu (she/her)

Fulbright Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities, 2022-3 Principal Investigator, LAB Cooperative and REED London Online Executive Board Chair-Elect, ADHO Chair, TEI-C Executive Board