I wholeheartedly support the idea of allowing some form of
non-face-to-face participation in our conferences. That is the ONLY
solution that addresses ALL cost components, in particular travel and
accommodation costs.
However, I disagree with some specifics of your proposal.
Please, see below.
obazan@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
> That's a very good summary. I agree that it is better to deal with the
> issues separately.
>
> I believe the solution for first issue (reducing non-author presenters) is
> clear and does not deserve further discussion.
>
> That's why I am in favor of having special sessions in which the
> presentations (and discussions) are allowed to be remotely. The technology
> is already available. Policies can be applied to avoid misuse, for
> example:
>
> 1- Interested authors in "virtual presentations" must indicate upon
> submission.
Completely disagree, and see no rationale for it. Authors should be free
to choose the presentation mode without pressure or fear that it will
affect acceptance prospects one way or another.
Furthermore,the perception may be created that a paper accepted for a
given presentation mode is worth less/more (for "career" purposes). The
only way to address these possibilities is by postponing presentation
mode choice after acceptance notification. After those choices are made,
then the TPC can make the preliminary programme. Switching presentation
mode after that point could be restricted and penalised appropriately
and fairly.
Some may fear that such policy may put conferences at a high risk in the
sense that perhaps "too many" authors may choose virtual presentation,
which would create some sort of financial risk.
Such fear are unjustified.
1) Reasonable room/venue cancellation costs can be shared by remote
authors, when necessary. Even in this case, remote authors may save
substantial amount of money over being forced to physically attend.
2) As part of the negotiations with venue managers, conference
organisers may include in the contract some room-cancellation
provisions, to avoid last minute surprises.
3) Statistical information from previous years would guide conference
organisers on the expected percentage of authors that choose each
presentation mode. This information will allow them to make the right
venue choices, even before decisions are made, or paper are submitted.
Notice that such risks exist today also, since venue choices are often
made well ahead of the paper submission deadlines.
4) If a small number of venue rooms go unused, that would likely be a
relatively minor cost, compared with travel and accommodation costs
saved (see point 1).
5) If it turns out that the overwhelming majority of authors choose
virtual mode, to the point that physical conferences are entirely phased
out, that should be interpreted as a natural evolution resulting from
telecom technology (Internet) and not necessarily a "bad thing" to be
avoided at all cost (think paper proceedings vs digital proceedings for
an apt comparison).
6) Society/IEEE funding need not be negatively affected by virtual
presentation mode. If any thing, non-physical presentations represent
reduced financial risk for the societies, since financial commitments
may be minimised or eliminated.
> 2- Only authors away from the conference venue (e.g. more than 2-hr
> flight) can apply.
I fail to see the rationale here. And this could easily be circumvented
simply by choosing a conference that is far enough from your institution
so that you can qualify as a remote author. What would the policy
accomplish, then?
> 3- no-show policy if author is not online during presentation and
> discussion sessions.
As an alternative, the conference may simply have an asynchronous mode
"track" that extends even longer than the days of the
physically-attended tracks. Papers in this track would be posted in an
appropriate server, with appropriate software -- already available---
for a specified time, and their authors would be required to monitor
comments/questions during the specified time. This is the way
"cyber-conferences" (totally online) operate -- they do exist already.
If you are afraid that "too many" authors will choose asynchronous mode
participation, please see comments above (specially item 5).
> 4- Registration fees for this category should cover any related costs
> (minus food costs:))
Agreed of course,
The logical extension of the above line of thinking is that fully-online
(asynchronous mode) conferences should be part of the portfolio of
offers. Considering that our community is mostly responsible for
"Internet-technology", it is surprising that we do not have a highly
reputable online conference to choose from. Pasted below is text from a
CFP to an online conference, which does a good job of explaining the
benefits of such format.
Wmbr,
Virgilio
P.S. Some have suggested the use of twitter (and/or similar sites) as a
complement to conferences. Please see (
http://www.twitip.com/twitter-trumps-online-conference-six-steps-for-using-twitter-for-your-conference-or-event/
)
P.P.S. Online conference CFP explaining its advantages over traditional
conferences :
2. Five (5) reasons why you should attend CybErg 2008. As compared to
conventional conferences, the CybErg conferences have some added advantages.
Reason 1: Opportunity to have more in-depth and quality discussions As
CybErg is on for a Month, participants will be able to discuss the
papers in greater detail. Unlike conventional conferences, where the
Question and Answer sessions only allow a small number of questions to
be asked, participants have ample time to think about the questions
before posting them in CybErg. In addition, authors will more time to
reflect on the comments given before responding. All this, we believe
will contribute to a more quality discourse on the papers and topics of
discussion.
Reason 2: Ability to attend and participate in ALL tracks A common
problem in attending conventional conferences is that two paper
presentations that you would like to attend are held simultaneously. In
CybErg, all registered participants can "attend" ALL the sessions.
Reason 3: Opportunities to meet and network with an internationally
diverse Ergonomics/Human Factors community
With the eradication of high travel costs (transport costs,
accommodation costs, subsistence costs, etc.) to attend conferences,
participants from countries, not normally present in international
conferences, are thus able to participate. There are opportunities for
researchers to meet potential collaborators (e.g. those wanting to
conduct cross-nation comparison studies) and for practitioners to meet
contacts in less established markets.
Reason 4: Access to experts from all over the world CybErg is able to
bring together experts of a truly international nature.
As mentioned above, a more diverse Ergonomics/Human Factors community
would be attending. This provides an excellent opportunity for the
sharing of expertise and experience, not only between those from the
developed nations (usual attendees in international face-to-face
conferences), but also with those from developing nations.
Reason 5: No registration fee (and proceedings delivered right to your
doorstep)
As there are no conference costs (such as venue hire costs, no
refreshment costs*, no guest speaker travel costs, etc.), CybErg is also
able to offer no registration fee. This is particularly beneficial to
participants from developing countries, where there is a poor rate of
currency exchange and where travel to foreign countries is expensive.
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment