With the CSCW deadline coming up, it’s time to remind authors that folks who submit papers should review papers as well. There are lots of good reasons to review, including professional skill development, building a reputation as a thoughtful contributor, becoming aware of other work in your area, and being part of the academic conversation–reviewing helps shape the direction of fields [0].
My main point in this post, though, is that your submission is consuming the community’s resources. On average, papers submitted to conferences get around five reviews: three reviewers and one metareviewer almost always; at CHI, CSCW, and friends, there’s usually a second metareviewer and sometimes more than two [1].
Between the finding of reviewers, the reading of submissions, the writing of reviews, and the discussion of the paper between reviewers both before and at the PC meeting, I’m guessing the average paper burns through 15 hours of other people’s time.
So, two implications. First is that if you’re consuming, you should be contributing as well. My rule of thumb is that the authors of every submission should conspire to do (at least) five reviews. This won’t always work–sometimes people submit across fields, or everyone on a paper is junior and unlikely to be chosen as a reviewer–but it’s a good rough estimate.
Second is that you should consume wisely. Every time I hear someone say “I don’t think this will get in but it would be useful to get some reviews”, I cringe, because you’re burning away people’s academic energy [2]. Go find some people who know the area, whose opinions you respect, and/or whose job it is is to help you improve your work and ask them for help. Trade reads with fellow travelers. Submit to works in progress, workshops, posters, and other venues where a part of the game is to get feedback on work in progress.
Sorry, a little ranty today, and I’m happy to hear counterarguments around the role of reviewing (in particular, iterative improvement feels more like part of the lifecycle of journal papers), obligations to review, or really anything else. 🙂 But take the big point: think about the costs and contributions you’re making to your community [3] and make choices that respect the community and the people in it.
[0] $1 to Phoebe Sengers, who pointed this out to me.
[1] This is almost always a bad thing for papers in my experience; usually, this means a paper that the ACs aren’t passionate enough to argue for–or one where they picked reviewers who liked the paper, but the ACs disagree–that is being sent off to die under the weight of reviews.
[2] Technically, you’re burning away their lives, period.
[3] You can apply this to other aspects of the game as well, including doing “practice interviews”, writing but not reviewing grants, taking but not giving help, contributing to your local (grad student/faculty/industry) social and professional infrastructure, et al.
Sports, a dynamic and captivating domain, brings people together, transcending boundaries and uniting them under the spell of competition and athletic prowess. Whether it’s the thrill of witnessing a game-winning shot, the exhilaration of a sprinter breaking a record, or the sheer determination etched on the faces of athletes pushing their limits, sports continue to captivate us. Amidst this passionate pursuit, the need for fair play and integrity remains paramount, which is why reporting instances of suspicious activities, known as 먹튀신고 in Korean, ensures the preservation of the true spirit of sportsmanship and guarantees a level playing field for all involved.
Submitting work or documents for review is a critical step in ensuring quality and compliance, especially in fields where data security is paramount. ISO 27001 accredited organizations understand that “Submit implies review” is more than just a mantra; it’s a fundamental principle. By adhering to the rigorous standards of ISO 27001, companies prioritize the safeguarding of sensitive information, guaranteeing that every submission undergoes a meticulous review process to identify and rectify potential vulnerabilities, ultimately upholding the highest standards of security and trust.
Implies review” involves assessing the indirect implications of actions or decisions. When it comes to online gambling, a thorough implies review of a casino site recommendation 카지노사이트 추천 is essential. It requires scrutinizing factors beyond the surface, such as reputation, security measures, and user experiences. By conducting a meticulous implies review, one can ensure a safer and more satisfying gambling experience. It’s not just about the apparent features but also about understanding the hidden implications for the players’ well-being and enjoyment.
Esitamine eeldab ülevaatamist” rõhutab, kui tähtis on enne mis tahes esitamise lõpetamist põhjalikult uurida. See põhimõte kehtib erinevates valdkondades, olgu need siis akadeemilised dokumendid, tööavaldused või isegi veebitehingud. Nii nagu veebikasiinode legitiimsuse ja turvalisuse tagamine enne isikuandmete esitamist. Veebisaidid, nagu https://hmkasiinodeesti.com/, seavad esikohale ülevaatusprotsessid, rõhutades hoolsuskohustuse olulisust sujuva ja turvalise kasutuskogemuse jaoks.
to craft articles that develop professional skills, build a reputation as a thoughtful contributor, be aware of other work in your area, and engage in scholarly conversations that require writers It takes expertise and creative imagination to create remarkable articles. @ flappy bird
Submitting to BorderFreeHealth pharmacy online implies entrusting your health to a meticulous review process. With each order, customers relinquish a degree of control, relying on the expertise and scrutiny of pharmacists to ensure safety and efficacy. This partnership of submission and review underscores a commitment to quality and accountability in online pharmaceutical services. In embracing this dynamic, individuals prioritize their well-being, confident in the thorough examination their prescriptions undergo before reaching their doorstep.