[OSGeo-Discuss] Call for Papers for FOSS4G 2013 Academic Track

[Jeff McKenna]

Here's another thought for our "lessons learned" wiki:  For the next
FOSS4G event, the first step in the Academic submission process could be
an "extended abstract" due for something like Feb 1st.  How I am coming
up with that idea?  On this past Friday was a deadline for a "CoastGIS"
event, and all presentation abstracts were to follow an "extended"
abstract template (min 2 pages max 4 pages, including listing your
peer-reviewed sources); selected extended abstracts will be invited to
submit full papers.  Could this be the first step someday for a FOSS4G
Academic track?  I've leave that to the FOSS4G Academic leaders to
discuss (again I am not one of those leaders).

For the record here was the "extended" abstract template (sorry for the
M$ file, I have no relation to this event):
http://coinatlantic.ca/coastgis2013/docs/CoastGIS_2013_Extended_Abstract_Template.doc

Thanks for listening.

-jeff



On 13-01-27 11:49 AM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> Hello Barend, Venka, Andy, Max, Nick, and Puneet,
> 
> First I want to thank the Academic chairs Barend and Franz-Josef for
> volunteering for the management of the difficult process of the
> selection of papers for the FOSS4G 2013 event.  I am impressed by their
> passion and dedication to getting papers published in the Transactions
> in GIS journal, this is very important.
> 
> I want to make a strong reminder to all of the FOSS4G 2013 local
> committee (academic or otherwise) to make sure to be adding to your
> "Lessons Learned" wiki page as you travel down this path (the time to be
> adding thoughts is now not later when you have forgotten: as a
> documenter, I know those that say "oh I'll do that later" never ever do,
> ever).  Please begin writing your thoughts for 2013 at:
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2013_Lessons_Learned  You will notice
> that is is blank for 2013.   These thoughts are very important to share,
> as future local committees will be reviewing these (take a look at all
> the wonderful lessons learned from previous events linked from that
> page, really wonderful to have).  Thank you, and future event committees
> will thank you.
> 
> Regarding the Academic track call for papers for 2013, of course we must
> respect the local committees decisions.  I am listening to Barend's
> thoughts, as well as long-time FOSS4G academic leaders like Venka and
> Massimiliano.  I feel that the 2013 committee could consider their
> feedback, and possibly extend the deadline by a month to March 1st.  It
> would give researchers some breathing room to prepare their papers,
> which, yes is earlier than past FOSS4G events but if we all want papers
> within these journals we must respect these early deadlines.  Of course
> the local committee doesn't have to make an extension, I am only making
> a suggestion.
> 
> Another idea, or reminder, I have for the committee is to be as open as
> possible; for example, there is a mailing list setup just for FOSS4G
> Academic discussions (I believe this was probably last used in 2010, but
> it is there to discuss openly with academic FOSS4G leaders).  Again,
> there is no official requirement for local committees to use these
> mailing lists.  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g-academic
> 
> Finally, I just now went back to examine the FOSS4G 2011 Academic Track
> process used.  In fact that year I was also on the Academic Selection
> committee, which was led wonderfully by the hard-working Rafael Moreno.
>  On February 1st a "Call for Papers" was released for the Academic
> track, and the call was actually for abstracts (yes google archives can
> trick you sometimes, as the title was for "Call for Papers" but if you
> read the release the first step was abstract submission).  The deadline
> for academic abstracts was April 15th.  We received approximately 60
> academic abstracts (note that the day before the deadline, on April
> 14th, we only had 9 submissions so far - Paul Ramsey would be nodding
> his head at this, as this is very common, the many submitted right at
> the deadline).  Rafael then instructed us to have our abstract rankings
> back to him by May 16th.  From those rankings the plan was: the top 11 +
> 2 (backup) were invited to submit a paper for TGIS; the next 11 + 2
> (backup) were invited to submit a paper for the OSGeo Journal.
> According to my email archives the deadline for those full papers was
> July 30th; and we received a total of 17 full papers.  The rest
> (history) should be discussed on the FOSS4G Academic list with the
> academic leaders (I am not one), but I hope this little history summary
> helps the 2013 committee move forward.
> 
> Again thanks for the hard work of the 2013 local committee.
> 
> And thank you all for your FOSS4G passion (Puneet was right to put it
> all in perspective).
> 
> -jeff
> OSGeo President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 13-01-25 7:26 AM, b.j.kobben at utwente.nl wrote:
>> Dear Venka and Massimiliano,
>>
>> I feel we have to defend the Foss4G2013 AT a bit here (as AT co-chairs we
>> should ;-)
>>
>> It is actually not true that "Previous FOSS4G's had abstract review by the
>> academic committee
>> and selected authors were asked to submit full papers closer to the
>> conference dates."
>> Both in the 2010 and 2011 conferences we had submission of full papers,
>> not abstracts. 
>>
>> The reason for this is that academics nowadays need to publish, if we want
>> or not, and that means we have to offer a possibility of official
>> publishing for the AT papers. The only way to achieve that is have journal
>> outlets secured well beforehand and for that you need to set up a "Journal
>> Type" submission and reviewing system, which means selection of full
>> papers. Having to first select promising abstract, then ask these people
>> to write full papers, and then have these properly peer-reviewed, all
>> before the conference publication deadline, would mean we'd need an even
>> earlier deadline.
>> This by the way is nowadays accepted academic practice at conferences that
>> offer Jopurnal publication outputs.
>>
>> I agree that 7 months before the conference seems like a very early
>> deadline, but for the reviewing process, the editing and processing of
>> accepted papers and preparation of manuscripts for publication, it
>> actually is quite a tight time table. Note that the advantage is that if
>> your paper is accepted, you are assured of it being actually published at
>> the conference date, something may academics are keen for...
>>
>> Note also that the normal (non AT) tracks at Foss4G continue to offer
>> submission and reviewing based on abstracts.
>>
>> We will have this year (as in previous years) an Academic Committee. These
>> are the people that will be asked to do the full paper reviewing, and we
>> have just this week invited candidates and have asked them to agree to do
>> this important task. The list will appear on the site once the reviewing
>> process starts.
>>
>> I hope this answers some of your questions.
>>
>>
>> For further questions, comments and remarks, please don't hesitate to
>> contact the Academic Track co-chairs:
>>
>> * Franz-Josef Behr (Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences):
>> franz-josef.behr at hft-stuttgart.de
>> * Barend Köbben (ITC-University of Twente): kobben at itc.nl


-- 
Jeff McKenna
MapServer Consulting and Training Services
http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/