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

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 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 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 _______________________________________________ PC2023 mailing list 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 (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