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

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Jo,

Indeed I fully agree with you.

There seemed to be some confusion on past vs present.  My goal was only
to clear that up.

I'll step back and let the Academic committee decide on all that.

-jeff



On 13-01-28 10:59 AM, Jo Cook wrote:
> Hi Jeff and the rest of the list,
> 
> I'm speaking from a position of ignorance about this, but surely the
> academic track submission process will need to change from year to year
> depending on the journal that papers are to be submitted to? Surely the
> process is driven mainly by the demands and deadlines of the journal,
> rather than any arbitrary date chosen by a committee?
> 
> I think the only way you could set the dates and process in stone would
> be to guarantee publication in the same journal each year (as well as
> the OSGeo journal).
> 
> Happy to be corrected on any of these points though!
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jeff McKenna
> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com <mailto:jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>>
> wrote:
> 
>     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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:franz-josef.behr at hft-stuttgart.de>
>     >> * Barend Köbben (ITC-University of Twente): kobben at itc.nl
>     <mailto:kobben at itc.nl>
> 
>