[Air-L] The review process for IR15

[sava saheli singh]

hi,

long time lurker, second time reviewer.

I enjoyed reviewing the papers this year, as I did last year.

a possible solution to being presented with a paper that doesn't quite fit
in with keywords that we specified or our comfort level with qual vs quant
might be a system by which we can send the paper back with a comment on why
we couldn't or didn't want to review it, and a recommendation on who might
be better suited to review it - in terms of expertise required.

hope that helps,
sava



On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM, <air-l-request at listserv.aoir.org> wrote:

> Send Air-L mailing list submissions to
>         air-l at listserv.aoir.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         air-l-request at listserv.aoir.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         air-l-owner at listserv.aoir.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Air-L digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. EAGER Workshop live on HASTAC (Marco Toledo Bastos)
>    2. Now Available: Kids on YouTube (Patricia Lange)
>    3. Re: The review process for IR15 (Deller, Ruth A)
>    4. Re: The review process for IR15 (Jeremy hunsinger)
>    5. MOOD-Y call for submissions EXTENDED (Paulus, Trena M)
>    6. CFP for Workshops co-located with Hypertext 2014, deadline
>       May 23rd (Denis Parra)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 00:11:20 +0100
> From: "Marco Toledo Bastos" <herrcafe at gmail.com>
> To: <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
> Subject: [Air-L] EAGER Workshop live on HASTAC
> Message-ID: <015801cf68b7$54e52140$feaf63c0$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="UTF-8"
>
> Dear AoIR?ers,
>
>
>
> HASTAC is organizing a workshop focusing on the impact of social networks
> on scholarly research. The full day workshop will be held on May 28 in the
> PhD Lab in Digital Knowledge at Duke University. The morning session will
> be live streamed over the internet, but if you happen to be in the area
> make sure to register on Eventbrite:
>
>
>
> https://www.eventbrite.com/e/eager-conference-tickets-11358969985
>
>
>
> Feel free to pass this on to graduate students and faculty who may be
> interested and able to participate in the workshop.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Marco Bastos
>
> --
>
> Postdoctoral Fellow
>
> NSF EAGER Grant
>
> mtabastos at hastac.org
>
> hastac.org/collections/eager
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.hastac.org/events/eager-conference-may-28-2014
>
>
>  <http://www.hastac.org/events/eager-conference-may-28-2014>
>
> EAGER Conference MAY 28, 2014 | HASTAC
>
> The National Science Foundation awarded HASTAC the EAGER grant to allow
> for extensive data mining of HASTAC data. The website includes over 200MB
> in SQL tables with individual and institutional information of scholars.
>
>  <http://www.hastac.org/events/eager-conference-may-28-2014> Read more...
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Patricia Lange <pglange at yahoo.com>
> To: "air-l at listserv.aoir.org" <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
> Subject: [Air-L] Now Available: Kids on YouTube
> Message-ID:
>         <1399331842.57540.YahooMailNeo at web165003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
> ?
> Following others? leads, I?m announcing the publication of my
> new book, Kids on YouTube: Technical Identities and Digital Literacies
> (Left
> Coast Press, 2014). If you?d like to write a review let me know! The book
> describes what kids learn (and what they don?t) when they hang out on the
> ?Tube.
> Please feel free to pass along to interested colleagues!
> ?
> Book description is here: https://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=500
> ?
> Henry Jenkins did a multi-part blog interview series with
> me:
> Part one:
>
> http://henryjenkins.org/2014/03/kids-on-youtube-an-interview-with-patricia-lange-part-one.html
> Part two:
>
> http://henryjenkins.org/2014/03/kids-on-youtube-an-interview-with-patricia-lange-part-two.html
> Part three:
>
> http://henryjenkins.org/2014/03/kids-on-youtube-an-interview-with-patricia-lange-part-three.html
> Part four:
>
> http://henryjenkins.org/2014/03/kids-on-youtube-an-interview-with-patricia-lange-part-four.html
> ?
> Table of Contents
> Chapter 1? Introduction:
> Ways With Video | 8
> Chapter 2? Video-Mediated
> Friendships: specialization and Relational expertise | 32
> Chapter 3? Girls
> Geeking out on YouTube | 63
> Chapter 4 ?Mediated
> Civic engagement | 97
> Chapter 5? Video-Mediated
> Lifestyles | 126
> Chapter 6? Representational
> ideologies | 157
> Chapter 7? On being
> self-Taught | 189
> Chapter 8? Conclusion
> | 216
> Appendix: Studying YouTube: An ethnographic Approach | 231
> ?
> Best regards,
> ?
> Patricia G. Lange
> Assistant Professor
> Critical Studies
> California College of the Arts
> plange at cca.edu
> ?
> Editor-in-Chief
> The CASTAC Blog
> http://blog.castac.org
> ?
> Websites:
> http://www.cca.edu/academics/faculty/plange
> http://www.patriciaglange.org/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:29:00 +0000
> From: "Deller, Ruth A" <R.A.Deller at shu.ac.uk>
> To: list list <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
> Subject: Re: [Air-L] The review process for IR15
> Message-ID:
>         <D613DA7973AF0E4985AF66F86C4A09F8F919BF40 at kidney.hallam.shu.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Just to contribute to the discussion as someone who didn't submit this
> year (I had surgery the day before deadline - all your awwws here plsthnx)
> but has been accepted and reviewed the past couple of years and who also
> reviewed this year:
>
> As others have noted about their experiences, I had one paper in
> particular I didn't feel was really in my comfort zone as a reviewer this
> year.  I am not sure what the conftool system allows for but I think it'd
> be great if we were able to review according to discipline and not just
> topic.  For example, one of my selected topics is something suitably vague
> like 'social networking' - which is great if someone's done a lovely
> qualitative analysis of discourse or user opinions etc - I am all over
> that.  But if I was sent a really complicated stat-heavy analysis of social
> media algorithms or something (this hasn't happened thankfully) I would
> have no clue what to do with it!  Interdisciplinarity is great when we get
> there but to ensure it is interdisciplinary, it  probably would be good if
> familiarity with disciplinary approaches and framing was part of the review
> process...
>
> ...which also leads us back to the short paper format.  I found it easier
> this year to work with than last year having gotten more used to it - but
> it's still difficult to assess the quality of scholarship and ideas based
> on something that is an uncomfortable halfway house between an abstract and
> a paper - I  know some people like it, but maybe multiple submission
> formats would work - and reviewers could choose which format they reviewed?
>  Possibly messy to administer, but maybe it would help the problem of
> trying to make one approach work for all disciplines?
>
> Ruth
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org]
> on behalf of Radhika G [gradhika2012 at gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 May 2014 14:33
> To: Jill Walker Rettberg
> Cc: list list
> Subject: Re: [Air-L] The review process for IR15
>
> we do open review at ADA: Journal of Gender, New Media and Technology which
> I co-edit with Carol Stabile.
>
> http://fembotcollective.org
>
> I can talk to you about how that's going sometime via google hangout if you
> like and put you in touch with Carol and the terrific ADA editorial team.
>
> r
> ___
>
> Radhika Gajjala
> http://www.cyberdiva.org
>
>
> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Jill Walker Rettberg <
> Jill.Walker.Rettberg at lle.uib.no> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations and condolences to everyone who's just received
> > acceptances and rejections for their IR15 papers and panels. I got one of
> > each (hooray for our pre-conference selfie workshop!) - and I was hoping
> to
> > renew the (sorry, I know kind of exhausting) discussions about how an
> ideal
> > review process would look.
> >
> > First, thank you to the organisers for seeing through a very complicated
> > process - and getting the notifications out on time, too! I genuinely
> > appreciate that it is a HUGE job organising a conference, and that there
> > probably is no perfect system - especially in a radically
> > cross-disciplinary conference like this. I'm also program chair for
> another
> > conference next year and obviously would like to make sure that the
> > reviewing process for that goes as well as possible.
> >
> > My main disappointment was that the two papers I was assigned to review
> > weren't in my area of expertise. I think I made the mistake of checking
> > "digital humanities" among the list of topics and methodologies I could
> > review and I got two papers that had that in their keywords but had
> > absolutely nothing to do with digital humanities at all. I thought that
> was
> > pretty disappointing, especially since I know many people in the
> humanities
> > didn't get humanities reviewers, and there I was, a humanist reviewing
> > statistical and sociological methods. Not optimal at all.
> >
> > I would prefer an open review process, though I realise traditional blind
> > review might be easier (due to familiarity?) and for an open process
> you'd
> > have to find ways to avoid people just voting for their friends or people
> > they know of. There are systems for this though, aren't there? And you
> > could even still have semi-blind review where authors were anonymised.
> >
> > If that's not going to happen, at the least I think tracks (perhaps
> > especially for the humanities) or, better, allowing reviewers to bid for
> > papers they would like to review (based on the titles or perhaps title +
> > abstract) would make sense. It's such a waste to use me to review
> > statistics and have ethnographers reviewing literary/textual analysis,
> and
> > that can be avoided with bidding. I think Easychair.org allows this. Also
> > it's really fun as a reviewer to see the titles of ALL the proposed
> papers.
> > You really get an idea of the field as a whole. I don't see any reason
> why
> > that should be secret.
> >
> > Anyway, in the interest of openness, and because rejection is part of
> > being an academic and one we tend to pretend never happens, I posted my
> > rejected proposal and the reviews it received here:
> > http://jilltxt.net/?p=3963 along with some thoughts about the process
> > both of being a reviewer and of receiving reviews. There are also some
> > interesting comments from others in the Facebook thread I posted here
> > (because nobody comments on blogs anymore)
> > https://www.facebook.com/jill.rettberg/posts/510785413159
> >
> > I'd really like to hear other peoples' experiences with the process and
> > ideas for how to set up an ideal reviewing process for a
> cross-disciplinary
> > conference.
> >
> > Jill
> >
> >
> > Jill Walker Rettberg
> > Professor of Digital Culture
> > Dept of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies
> > University of Bergen
> > Postboks 7800
> > 5020 Bergen
> >
> > + 47 55588431
> >
> > Blog - http://jilltxt.net
> > Twitter - http://twitter.com/jilltxt
> >
> > My latest book, Blogging (2nd ed), is available from Polity:
> > http://www.politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=0745663648
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> > http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> >
> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> > http://www.aoir.org/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 07:50:48 -0400
> From: Jeremy hunsinger <jhunsinger at wlu.ca>
> To: "Deller, Ruth A" <R.A.Deller at shu.ac.uk>
> Cc: list list <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
> Subject: Re: [Air-L] The review process for IR15
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CALCDE-LeyGpoX25V+kHR3yXeJTY+zDR_z48qhOHd-CXApkMrQA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> In that regard rather than discipline, it might be good just to have a
> click for click for 'statistics' which would allow better review of
> those abstracts.  There are plenty of people in AoIR that are
> statistic's capable though, and no one is required to do a review that
> they do not want to do or can't do, so all they would have to do now
> is to send those back to the conference organizer and they would be
> reassigned.
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Deller, Ruth A <R.A.Deller at shu.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > Just to contribute to the discussion as someone who didn't submit this
> year (I had surgery the day before deadline - all your awwws here plsthnx)
> but has been accepted and reviewed the past couple of years and who also
> reviewed this year:
> >
> > As others have noted about their experiences, I had one paper in
> particular I didn't feel was really in my comfort zone as a reviewer this
> year.  I am not sure what the conftool system allows for but I think it'd
> be great if we were able to review according to discipline and not just
> topic.  For example, one of my selected topics is something suitably vague
> like 'social networking' - which is great if someone's done a lovely
> qualitative analysis of discourse or user opinions etc - I am all over
> that.  But if I was sent a really complicated stat-heavy analysis of social
> media algorithms or something (this hasn't happened thankfully) I would
> have no clue what to do with it!  Interdisciplinarity is great when we get
> there but to ensure it is interdisciplinary, it  probably would be good if
> familiarity with disciplinary approaches and framing was part of the review
> process...
> >
> > ...which also leads us back to the short paper format.  I found it
> easier this year to work with than last year having gotten more used to it
> - but it's still difficult to assess the quality of scholarship and ideas
> based on something that is an uncomfortable halfway house between an
> abstract and a paper - I  know some people like it, but maybe multiple
> submission formats would work - and reviewers could choose which format
> they reviewed?  Possibly messy to administer, but maybe it would help the
> problem of trying to make one approach work for all disciplines?
> >
> > Ruth
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org]
> on behalf of Radhika G [gradhika2012 at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 04 May 2014 14:33
> > To: Jill Walker Rettberg
> > Cc: list list
> > Subject: Re: [Air-L] The review process for IR15
> >
> > we do open review at ADA: Journal of Gender, New Media and Technology
> which
> > I co-edit with Carol Stabile.
> >
> > http://fembotcollective.org
> >
> > I can talk to you about how that's going sometime via google hangout if
> you
> > like and put you in touch with Carol and the terrific ADA editorial team.
> >
> > r
> > ___
> >
> > Radhika Gajjala
> > http://www.cyberdiva.org
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Jill Walker Rettberg <
> > Jill.Walker.Rettberg at lle.uib.no> wrote:
> >
> >> Congratulations and condolences to everyone who's just received
> >> acceptances and rejections for their IR15 papers and panels. I got one
> of
> >> each (hooray for our pre-conference selfie workshop!) - and I was
> hoping to
> >> renew the (sorry, I know kind of exhausting) discussions about how an
> ideal
> >> review process would look.
> >>
> >> First, thank you to the organisers for seeing through a very complicated
> >> process - and getting the notifications out on time, too! I genuinely
> >> appreciate that it is a HUGE job organising a conference, and that there
> >> probably is no perfect system - especially in a radically
> >> cross-disciplinary conference like this. I'm also program chair for
> another
> >> conference next year and obviously would like to make sure that the
> >> reviewing process for that goes as well as possible.
> >>
> >> My main disappointment was that the two papers I was assigned to review
> >> weren't in my area of expertise. I think I made the mistake of checking
> >> "digital humanities" among the list of topics and methodologies I could
> >> review and I got two papers that had that in their keywords but had
> >> absolutely nothing to do with digital humanities at all. I thought that
> was
> >> pretty disappointing, especially since I know many people in the
> humanities
> >> didn't get humanities reviewers, and there I was, a humanist reviewing
> >> statistical and sociological methods. Not optimal at all.
> >>
> >> I would prefer an open review process, though I realise traditional
> blind
> >> review might be easier (due to familiarity?) and for an open process
> you'd
> >> have to find ways to avoid people just voting for their friends or
> people
> >> they know of. There are systems for this though, aren't there? And you
> >> could even still have semi-blind review where authors were anonymised.
> >>
> >> If that's not going to happen, at the least I think tracks (perhaps
> >> especially for the humanities) or, better, allowing reviewers to bid for
> >> papers they would like to review (based on the titles or perhaps title +
> >> abstract) would make sense. It's such a waste to use me to review
> >> statistics and have ethnographers reviewing literary/textual analysis,
> and
> >> that can be avoided with bidding. I think Easychair.org allows this.
> Also
> >> it's really fun as a reviewer to see the titles of ALL the proposed
> papers.
> >> You really get an idea of the field as a whole. I don't see any reason
> why
> >> that should be secret.
> >>
> >> Anyway, in the interest of openness, and because rejection is part of
> >> being an academic and one we tend to pretend never happens, I posted my
> >> rejected proposal and the reviews it received here:
> >> http://jilltxt.net/?p=3963 along with some thoughts about the process
> >> both of being a reviewer and of receiving reviews. There are also some
> >> interesting comments from others in the Facebook thread I posted here
> >> (because nobody comments on blogs anymore)
> >> https://www.facebook.com/jill.rettberg/posts/510785413159
> >>
> >> I'd really like to hear other peoples' experiences with the process and
> >> ideas for how to set up an ideal reviewing process for a
> cross-disciplinary
> >> conference.
> >>
> >> Jill
> >>
> >>
> >> Jill Walker Rettberg
> >> Professor of Digital Culture
> >> Dept of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies
> >> University of Bergen
> >> Postboks 7800
> >> 5020 Bergen
> >>
> >> + 47 55588431
> >>
> >> Blog - http://jilltxt.net
> >> Twitter - http://twitter.com/jilltxt
> >>
> >> My latest book, Blogging (2nd ed), is available from Polity:
> >> http://www.politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=0745663648
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> >> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> >> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> >>
> >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> >> http://www.aoir.org/
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> >
> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> > http://www.aoir.org/
> > _______________________________________________
> > The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> >
> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> > http://www.aoir.org/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 15:27:43 +0000
> From: "Paulus, Trena M" <tpaulus at utk.edu>
> To: "Air-L at listserv.aoir.org" <Air-L at listserv.aoir.org>
> Subject: [Air-L] MOOD-Y call for submissions EXTENDED
> Message-ID:
>         <4E0A039660057645950E27692F7EF9CD3B053945 at kmbx2.utk.tennessee.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> International Symposium: MOOD-Y (Micro-Analysis Of Online Data in York)
> The deadline for submissions has been extended to 14th May, 2014
> University of York, UK, 14-15 July, 2014.
> The analysis of online social behaviours is a vital aspect of contemporary
> social science, and it is important that large-scale data analysis is
> complemented by the detailed, qualitative analysis of interaction
> processes. Through themed presentations of empirical research and
> methodological processes on the first day, as well as researcher-led
> collaborative data workshops on the second day, the MOOD-Y symposium will
> provide a space for developing the theory and methodology of
> interaction(al) analysis of online social behaviour.
> The symposium will be appropriate for a range of participants, from
> specialists in particular analytic perspectives (such as Conversation
> Analysis, multimodality, Critical Discourse Analysis and cognate areas) to
> qualitative researchers interested in developing their analytic skills in
> relation to online data. A substantial aim for the symposium is to further
> develop an already flourishing interdisciplinary and international network
> of scholars who share an interest in the analysis of online interactional
> processes.
> The symposium is free to attend and has four invited keynotes
>
> *         William Gibson, Institute of Education, University of London.
> Topic: Questions, Methodologies, and Key Debates in the MicroAnalysis of
> Online Data
>
>
>
> *         Wyke Stommel, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands. Topic:
> Comparing chat and phone interaction
>
>
> *         Trena Paulus, University of Tennessee, USA, Jessica Lester,
> Indiana University, USA. Topic: A critical review of CA and DP applications
> in CMC contexts: Methodological implications.
>
>
> *         David Giles, The University of Winchester, UK. Topic: The vexed
> questions of violation and vulnerability. The problems and paradoxes of
> 'privacy', and the terror of Tweets, traceability, and truth claims.
>
> Call for papers and participation
> We invite 200-500 word proposals for papers that address the qualitative,
> micro-analytic examination of online data in all its forms, including
> audio, video and other textual materials. The proposals may deal with
> either theoretical or methodological issues relating to this area, and may
> include the use of perspectives such as conversation analysis, forms of
> discourse analysis, multimodal analysis.
> Some indicative paper topics include:
>
> *         Methods for studying interaction in social media (both
> synchronous and asynchronous)
>
> *         Using techniques from conversation analysis, discourse analysis
> and other forms of interactional analysis to investigate online data
>
> *         Challenges in applying methodologies developed for speech to the
> study of interaction through text, images and video
>
> *         Developing methodologies for specific data formats (e.g.
> discussion threads; comment fields; music compositions; video contributions)
>
> *         Use of new technologies for data collection, management,
> analysis and representation
>
> *         Reports on the findings of an empirical study of online
> interaction
>
> *         Discussion of the ethical issues of domain access and data
> gathering
>
> *         The relevance of the online/offline divide for the study of
> online communities
>
> *         Situating microanalytic techniques within broader research
> frameworks
>
> Proposals should be emailed in Word or PDF format to both Darren Reed (
> darren.reed at york.ac.uk<mailto:Darren.reed at york.ac.uk>) and Will Gibson (
> w.gibson at ioe.ac.uk<mailto:w.gibson at ioe.ac.uk>) by the 14th May, 2014.
> Proposals should include a title, a 200-500 word abstract, as well as the
> name, institutional affiliation, email address and contact telephone number
> of the presenter(s). If there is more than one author or presenter named on
> the abstract please indicate which is the correspondence author.
> The symposium will be hosted at the University of York and will be
> organised over two days with keynote presentations on each of the days.
> Registration is free.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 17:51:22 -0400
> From: Denis Parra <denisparra at gmail.com>
> To: "SOCNET at lists.ufl.edu" <SOCNET at lists.ufl.edu>,
>         Air-L at listserv.aoir.org,        SIGWEB-MEMBERS at listserv.acm.org,
>         IRList at lists.shef.ac.uk,        CHI-ANNOUNCEMENTS at listserv.acm.org
> Subject: [Air-L] CFP for Workshops co-located with Hypertext 2014,
>         deadline May 23rd
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAH-4Yj7CcKAN_axj238bRbec2y7qP0VvfpinLMY888EmDq0Tbg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Apologies for cross posting
>
> ====================================================================
> CALL FOR PAPERS - 4 Workshops co-located at Hypertext 2014
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Important Dates:
> ** Submission Deadline: May 23rd 2014 (23:59 Chile Time)
> ** Notification of Acceptance: Jun 6, 2014
>
> ** Final Papers Due: Jul 6, 2014
>
> ** Workshop date: September 1, 2014
> ====================================================================
> DataWiz: Workshop on Data Visualization.
> Martina Deplano, University of Turin, Italy.
> Andr? Panisson, ISI Foundation, Italy.
> Giancarlo Ruffo, University of Turin, Italy.
> Web page: http://datawiz2014.di.unito.it/
>
> Abstract:
> DataWiz aims at bringing together an interdisciplinary audience (e.g.
> computer and cognitive scientists, designers, data journalists), in order
> to discuss tools, models and metaphors useful to understand and explain
> input or output data through advanced graphical user interfaces. In fact,
> interacting with data by means of intriguing visual representations, that
> can eventually be accessed from the Web, is a fundamental approach to
> accurately present scientific findings in an appealing way. The aim is to
> leave to the observer (likely an expert of the domain) the task of
> exploring complex phenomena, without the pain of dealing with issues such
> as data complexity and overload of information. This workshop focuses on
> both scientific and information visualization, and discussions of best
> practices and innovative approaches are welcome.
>
> ====================================================================
> LinkQS: Workshop on Linking The Quantified Self.
> Amon Rapp, Universit? di Torino, Italy.
> Frank Hopfgartner, Technische Universit?t Berlin, Germany.
> Till Plumbaum, Technische Universit?t Berlin, Germany.
> Bob Kummerfeld, University of Sydney, Australia.
> Judy Kay, University of Sydney, Australia.
> Eelco Herder, L3S Research Center Hannover, Germany.
> Web page: http://linkqsws.wordpress.com/
>
> Abstract:
> Quantified Self tools help users to collect their data, aggregate them
> through some forms of reasoning, and feed them back through data
> visualizations. Although the current spread on the market of these kinds of
> tools, many issues arise in their usage. Looking at diverse fields of
> research, such as User Modeling, Web of Things and semantic web it is now
> possible to imagine to overcome some of these issues. This workshop aims to
> discuss the new opportunities that arise from these research fields.
>
> ====================================================================
> SP 2014: Workshop on Social Personalization.
> Peter Brusilovsky, University of Pittsburgh, USA.
> Leandro Balby Marinho, Federal University of Campina Grande, Brasil.
> Denis Parra, Pontificia Universidad Cat?lica, Chile.
> Eliana Scheihing, Universidad Austral, Chile.
> Christoph Trattner, Know-Center, Austria.
> Web page: http://columbus.exp.sis.pitt.edu/sp2014/
>
> Abstract:
> For the Social Personalization workshop, we aim to attract researchers from
> all over the world working in the fields of User Modeling, Personalization
> and Recommendations where the social context plays a fundamental role. This
> topic is important because it involves leveraging new sources of
> information that are specific for social systems such as shared items and
> tags, user public profiles, social connections, and logs of user social
> activities in order to improve people's information access in a wide
> variety of tasks and across different devices. These social information
> sources offer social personalization systems a chance to compensate for the
> lack of information and structure that is used by traditional
> personalization technologies ranging from recommender systems to
> E-learning. The goal of this workshop is to share and discuss research that
> goes hopefully beyond classic personalization techniques, trying to
> capitalise potentially useful information available in social data for
> paving the way to more efficient personalized information access
> technologies.
>
> ====================================================================
> WLT 2014: Workshop on Hyperlinking in the Web of Linked Things.
> Carlos Buil-Aranda, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile.
> Federica Cena, University of Torino, Italy.
> Ilaria Torre, University of Genoa, Italy.
> Web page: http://wlt.dibris.unige.it
>
> Abstract:
> The Web is now evolving from a mere network of connections among virtual
> content and data to a network of connections among real things and objects.
> In such new emerging Web, hyperlinks are consequently changing their
> nature. They can now connect very different kinds of resources that are
> real world things, data and documents; moreover they can be typed, i.e.
> they can describe the kind of relationship between the resources they
> connect, following the Linked Data principles. This workshop aims to
> discuss the new issues that arise from the rapid changes in this research
> field.
>
> ====================================================================
>
> Denis Parra
> Assistant Professor, CS Department
> School of Engineering, PUC CHile
> http://denisparra.github.io
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>
> End of Air-L Digest, Vol 118, Issue 6
> *************************************
>