Modeling collaboration protocols for collaborative modeling tools: Experiences and applications
Journal of Visual Languages and Computing
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
CSCW is now an annual conference and, for the first time ever, it is taking place outside of North America -- this year in China. Despite this change in timing and location, we are pleased to report that the number of submissions for 2011 was in the same range as last year. Moreover, following the United States, China was the second largest contributing nation with 22 submissions. In total, we received 264 papers and notes. These ranged across many different areas, including: designs for new communication and collaboration applications; new interaction techniques for novel hardware like tabletops and public displays; studies of groupware deployment and use, especially in the realm of new social media like micro-blogging and social networking sites; and methods for analyzing social interaction. These submissions addressed a wide range of applications domains, including: healthcare, rural areas, online gaming, mobile computing, preschool, colleges, community workers, and global software development. We think you will be impressed with the final line-up of 58 submissions that made it into CSCW 2011. Full Papers (10 pages) and Notes (4 pages) submissions were reviewed using the same process by the same Program Committee (PC). Much of our work is multidisciplinary and a wide range of expertise is needed in the overseeing program committee to ensure all submissions are fairly reviewed. Therefore, our committee consisted of established and rising researchers as well as practitioners from academia, corporate research laboratories, and consultancies. It included computer scientists, psychologists, designers, engineers, sociologists and linguists. Among them, they had deep knowledge of various domains ranging from game design to science and technology studies, applied to the critical analysis and design of technologies for work and for leisure, used on the move with mobile devices or at a desk on personal computers. We had 40 Associate Chairs (ACs) as the CSCW 2011 PC evaluating the 264 submissions -- 188 full papers and 76 notes. In order to simultaneously front-load some of the PC meeting work and increase the diversity of reviews for each submission, we modified the traditional AC allocation process: each submission was assigned a primary AC (1AC) as well as a secondary AC (2AC) up front. The 1AC and 2AC were allowed to consider desk rejection if there were technical problems with a submission (e.g. formatting) or if it was completely out of scope for the conference. Desk rejection had to be based on agreement between the two ACs and the PC chairs -- otherwise, the submission went into the review process. The 1AC and 2AC worked together to find a minimum of three external reviewers. Following submission of the external reviews, the ACs initiated a discussion among the reviewers, if needed, to resolve conflicting views. The 1ACs and 2ACs then completed a metareview summarizing the reviews and provided detailed comments with a recommendation for acceptance, rejection, and/or a request for additional input from the authors, which the authors were encouraged to provide through a rebuttal procedure. Following this, the reviewers and ACs were asked to consider the authors rebuttal and change their review and/or score if the rebuttal gave reasons to do so. In early November 2010, the PC met for 2 days in Mountain View, California. Submissions without a single positive review were flagged for automatic rejection, leaving 133 submissions to discuss. All had to be presented by their ACs: we did not auto-accept submissions. While the ACs who read the submission made the final recommendation, the decision process was highly visible so that all of the 40 program committee attendees could apply the same standards to their own decisions. ACs were encouraged to discuss at the committee meeting any submission that they thought had merit including those not originally assigned to them or for which they had acted as a 2AC. As a result, many more submissions were discussed than were finally accepted. In total, the PC and 1,021 external reviewers spent countless hours providing feedback to the authors. After this rigorous process, a total of 58 submissions - 45 full papers and 13 notes -- were accepted for publication in these proceedings, representing an overall acceptance rate of 22%. A subcommittee discussed and selected 21 of the 58 accepted submissions to be considered for special recognition in these proceedings for their particular level of quality. SIGCHI rules require that only 5% of submissions be nominated for best paper, with only 1% eventually getting the award. The aforementioned list of 21 accepted submissions was therefore reduced to 10 papers and 4 notes for consideration. Of these, 2 papers and 1 note were recognized as Best of CSCW 2011, while the remaining were awarded an honorable mention. These submissions are marked with small icons in the table of contents.