Dear Anne, Toma, and the PC,

 

Anne and Toma, thank you for all of the hard work you’ve been doing.

 

I know you have made the decision to accept proposals numerically, but I urge you not to claim that this is “fair”: instead, we are delegating the work of creating the conference program to the ConfTool algorithm that assigns reviewers and to reviewers who have, as you noted, wildly variant expectations for what constitutes a good score for the conference. The Conference Protocols note that “the PC oversees the academic program”—but this year, the program will not be shaped by the PC.

 

Basing acceptance entirely on numbers, furthermore, does not uphold ADHO’s commitment to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion because, for instance, the program committee can’t advocate for inclusion of a panel on indigenous data sovereignty, for instance, that might have been lowly ranked because of a reviewer’s unconscious bias. (For DH2020, we had instances of entire fields of studies being dismissed by reviewers that resulted in low rankings.) Moreover, numerical acceptance means that, in future years, we might see more of the “100 with no explanation” phenomenon that you point to (or its opposite), because people will think that an extreme number is more useful than any meaningful feedback on a proposal.

 

I understand that the PC Chairs have made this decision already. If you choose to be transparent about the conference process, however, I would avoid rhetoric about “fairness.”

 

I know organizing this conference is a monumental task and that reading the hundreds of submissions and thousands of reviews takes time, so again, thank you.

Laura

 

 

Dr. Laura Estill

Associate Professor of English

St. Francis Xavier University

Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Digital Humanities

 

 

 

From: PC2023 <pc2023-bounces@lists.digitalhumanities.org> on behalf of Michael Eberle Sinatra <michael.eberle.sinatra@umontreal.ca>
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 12:08 PM
To: pc2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org <pc2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org>
Subject: Re: [Pc2023] Final selection of submissions

Dear Anne and Toma and all the hard working members of the PC,

on behalf of the CCC, I would like to thank you for all your intellectual contribution and time devoted to this crucial component of our annual conference. I look forward to what promises to be a wonderful event and hope to see as many of you as possible in person in Graz!

Best wishes,

Michael

 

Michael E. Sinatra | Professeur titulaire et directeur

Centre de recherche interuniversitaire sur les humanités numériques (CRIHN)
Responsable du Groupe de Recherche sur les Éditions critiques en contexte Numérique (GREN)
Responsable de l’option doctorale en Humanités numériques, du microprogramme et de la mineure en HN, Université de Montréal

Co-Chair centerNet, An international network of digital humanities centers



On Mar 7, 2023, at 5:00 AM, Anne Baillot <anne.baillot@univ-lemans.fr> wrote:

 

Dear members of the PC,

 

based on your meta-reviews (for which we are very grateful), our ongoing discussions with the LOs regarding the location and availability of rooms, as well as further discussions on quality insurance, we have decided to shift our cut-off in several submission categories.

This will make it possible to accommodate a wider range of papers:

  • Long Papers: 105 submissions accepted with a cut-off at 78,3 points (44,68%)
  • Short Papers: 105 accepted with cut-off at 76,7 (35,96)
  • Posters: 112 accepted with cut-off at 64,0 (71,79%)
  • Panels: 14 accepted with cut-off at 85,7 (32,5%)
  • Workshops: 25 accepted with cut-off at 79,7 (75,75%)

The overall acceptance rate (with workshops) is 47,56%; without workshops 46,28%

 

This will translate into 7 parallel sessions during the conference. Accepting more submissions than that would get us into the territory where we wouldn’t feel comfortable with the kind of quality level that we’d like to see at DH2023. 

 

While this is, in the end, a purely numerical approach, we have decided to opt for it after long discussions on the fairness of the results. We balanced the flaws of the review process for quite a while (wide spans, extremely harsh reviews, 100 point reviews with no explanation of the grade) etc. but couldn’t find a qualitative solution that would be realistically accomplishable for the PC without introducing new challenges: for instance, cherry-picking submissions solely on the basis of a wide span for additional consideration would privilege those submissions over similarly graded submissions with a smaller grade span. 

 

We have gathered a few suggestions on how to improve the review quality; we will pass them on to the next PC. This is a work in progress into which the community can (and will) certainly be able to contribute to. We have all learned a lot from this year’s take on Open Identities in the review process… one thing that we have learned for sure is that it does not necessarily make the PC’s life easier.

 

We will be communicating the selection results to the authors via conftool on Wednesday (March 8th). We hope the final selection meets your approval and would like to thank you again for your efficient support in the process!

 

We are currently in touch with the keynotes to discuss the topics of their talks and will let you know about that as soon as they are final. We will also get back to you regarding the best reviewer award in a couple of weeks.

 

All best,

Anne and Toma

_______________________________________________
PC2023 mailing list
PC2023@lists.digitalhumanities.org
http://lists.lists.digitalhumanities.org/mailman/listinfo/pc2023