Dear members of the PC,

in the next stage of preparations for DH2023 – finalizing the list of accepted submissions – the role of the PC will be essential. We will need your help with some specific tasks, so please read on.

To access all the submissions and the reviews, you should log in to ConfTool and then click on “Manage Submissions and Reviews” > “Online Forum for the Program Committee”.

Quantitative cutoffs for acceptance

Keeping in mind that we would like to have around 6 parallel sessions in the main program, we are currently proposing to accept the following submissions:

• Long presentations: submissions with a grade equal or above 80,5 

• Short presentations: submissions with a grade equal or above 76,7 (except one rejection for an author who submitted only their CV and didn’t provide an actual abstract in the response phase although he was asked to)

• Panels: submissions with a grade equal or above 85,7

• Workshops: submissions with a grade equal or above 85

This would give us enough content to fill around 6 parallel sessions.

Grading spans

This purely quantitative approach, however, seems to us to be only half satisfactory considering the very wide spans there can be between two reviews for the same paper (you can see the span in Conftool in the second column from the left) - see picture below:

For some submissions whose score is within the ranges mentioned above or slightly below and that have a particularly big span between reviews, we would like to ask you to provide meta-reviews. 

Meta-reviews

Providing a meta-review consists in having a look at the abstract and at the reviews and suggesting a decision (accept/not accept) with one sentence of explanation. The goal is not that you do an additional review, but that you provide an assessment in these cases where the quality of the submission does not seem to be unequivocal. You can do this “meta-review” directly in the forum - neither authors nor reviewers will have access to it, and your judgment will remain within the PC. When in the forum, the right column leads to a “comment” area in which you can both provide an assessment and a justification for it in a textbox.

We have prepared a sheet with a list of submission IDs that need such a meta-review and would be extremely grateful if you could:

1. put your name next to 1-2 submissions;

2. do the meta-reviews for your self-assigned submissions by March 1st. 

This should not be as work-intensive as our reviewing effort in December. Self-assignments should be random and on a first-come, first-served basis. We are not looking for specific expertise, just common sense and an objective, external point of view in regard to the quality of the submissions, the available reviews and, in some cases, authors’ responses.

Here is the link to the list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ra35OvOzSIo1CsBygq5CdHfy-Qt2LuizsYIFhO9BQ7I/edit#gid=0

This concerns all submission types but posters, which we will deal with and inform you about separately.

We thank you in advance for your help with this work step too! - and will keep you posted on the overall progress of the selection process.

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