Dear Nanette and all,
According to Anne and Toma’s earlier communications, acceptance to this year’s conference was based entirely on quantitative scores.
In short:
* qualitative feedback was not taken into consideration
* responses to reviews that submitters undertook were not taken into consideration
* “notes the program committee” were not considered (this is where, for instance, submitters point out biased or inadequate reviews)
* quantitative scores were not altered to take into account “high graders” and “low graders”
* quantitative scores did not take into account that some reviewers chose not to revisit their reviews after the response phase (which means that the reviewer confTool assigned you could affect your score)
The PC was asked to look at only 19 submissions to the conference; usually there is a more robust meta-review process that accounts for the first three points (qualitative feedback, responses to reviews, and notes to the PC) in order to address inequality in the quantitative scoring, particularly for submissions that receive quite a range in reviewer scores and for those at the cusp of the acceptance/rejection line. From Anne and Toma’s earlier email, I think that even our comments on those 19 submissions were not considered, but I admit, the process has been a bit opaque to me.
Being PC Chairs is a ton of work and I am grateful to Anne and Toma for the Herculean effort it takes.
Laura
Dr. Laura Estill
Associate Professor of English
St. Francis Xavier University
Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities
From: Nanette Rißler-Pipka
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:55 AM
To: Laura Estill
Cc: Anne Baillot , pc2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org
Subject: Re: [Pc2023] Keynotes; program; best review award
Dear Anne and Toma, Laura and all,
I don't have the impression that the qualitative reviews were not taken into account.
Although, I also don't have any experience in program committees before now. Why should we deny the honour of receiving the reviewer award this year for those who invested time and work?
If you are still looking for volunteers for the decision regarding the reviewer award, I would be ready to help you.
Thank you, Anne and Toma, for all the preparations and difficult decisions before.
All the best,
Nanette
Laura Estill mailto:lestill@stfx.ca> schrieb am Mo., 1. Mai 2023, 16:20:
Dear All,
Is it disingenuous (or downright misleading) to offer a reward for qualitative reviews when those reviews were not taken into account by the program committee?
Given that the program was compiled using only quantitative reviews, perhaps we should not offer this reward this year.
Laura
Dr. Laura Estill
Associate Professor of English
St. Francis Xavier University
Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities
From: PC2023 mailto:pc2023-bounces@lists.digitalhumanities.org> on behalf of Anne Baillot mailto:anne.baillot@univ-lemans.fr>
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 8:41 AM
To: pc2023@lists.digitalhumanities.orgmailto:pc2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org mailto:pc2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org>
Subject: [Pc2023] Keynotes; program; best review award
Dear Members of the PC,
We now have both keynotes lined up with titles and abstracts.
Sarah Kenderdine will deliver the opening keynote under the title “Two-Fold Revolutions: Computational Museology in the Age of Experience”. The closing keynote will be held by Claire Fernandez and is entitled: "Contesting power in the digital age: the role of civil society in Europe." We are really excited about both of them.
We are currently working on the program and have managed to group some nice thematic units for the long papers; we will proceed next week with the short papers. Workshops are already online and panels don’t request much decision-making since they occupy one full slot each.
One topic that we have left unaddressed is the reviewer award. Several reviewers have received the same number of nominations for the reviewer award, and only one of them can receive the award. If two people from the PC felt inclined to take the matter in their own hands, it would really be great (not that we would not want to do it, but we would really like a fresh look on submissions and reviews). We would send you the list of the reviewers that were nominated (PC members excluded) and ask you to select one by looking at their review. If you would like, you could also present the awardee with a small eulogy during the conference. Please let us know what you think about this suggestion.
All best,
Anne and Toma
--
Anne Baillot
Professeure en Etudes Germaniques
Faculté de Lettres, Langues et Sciences Humaines
Département d'allemand
Université du Mans
Avenue Olivier Messiaen
F-72085 LE MANS Cedex 9
CV et publications: https://cv.archives-ouvertes.fr/annebaillot
Sur twitter: @AnneBaillot
_______________________________________________
PC2023 mailing list
PC2023@lists.digitalhumanities.orgmailto:PC2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org
http://lists.lists.digitalhumanities.org/mailman/listinfo/pc2023
