[Scipy-organizers] Reviewer Stickers on Badges / Honors In Program?

Katy Huff katyhuff at gmail.com
Fri Nov 8 13:50:45 EST 2013 

Hi Kristen,

Thanks for this thought! We haven't done that in the past. I also come from
a field where known experts conduct all reviews for professional
conferences, so I have a little bit of a bias. However, it's worth
considering, and I will make an effort to relax my curmudgeonly ideas about
how things are done and not done!

I do think that it is, in theory, a good idea to require reviews of
submitters. I am just hesitant about it in practice where qualifications
are concerned. That is, plenty of people who submit abstracts to scipy may
not be qualified to provide expert reviews. For example, we had a few high
schoolers submit abstracts last year. I have *nothing* against high
schoolers, and these were precocious individuals, probably vastly more
expert than many individuals attending the conference. However, I usually
expect reviews to come from more traditionally vetted "experts".

I think it's a good suggestion, and worth considering, but I would suggest
it may be most applicable for conferences where the experience of attendees
is more uniform than the field of backgrounds we have at SciPy.

All that said, I have a slightly different opinion about having
full-paper-submitters be required do reviews (as Jacob, among others, has
suggested). First of all, anyone who is submitting a full paper has already
had their abstract accepted, so their work has passed the first bar of
acceptability. Also, I think submitting a paper takes a level of expertise
higher than the level required to submit an abstract. Does that make sense?

Anyway, Serge and I will discuss this suggestion, but I think it's likely
that at least for the abstracts, we may continue rely on known experts in
the community.

Thanks!
Katy



On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Anthony Scopatz <scopatz at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Kristen Thyng <kthyng at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is underlying what you all are discussing, but just in case it
>> isn't: is it assumed that if you submit an abstract/paper/talk, you will
>> be
>> a reviewer too? This is how it has worked for me at other conferences, and
>> I think it is logical.
>
>
> Point of information: This is not how it has worked at SciPy in the past
> and
> it isn't how things happen at the PyCons.
>
> I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other and luckily it isn't
> in my sphere.
>
> Be Well
> Anthony
>
>
>> Then it is up to the conference to distribute things
>> needing review to people at least somewhat by discipline, with the
>> understanding that participation in the process is basically required if
>> you want to have your stuff reviewed as well. I guess I don't know how
>> this
>> has worked out at the other conferences I've been at since I wasn't
>> organizing, but I did my part! If that is a requirement, then there would
>> be plenty of reviewers.
>>
>> Kristen
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Katy Huff <katyhuff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is fantastic, everyone!
>> > It sounds like it would be totally feasible, then, to have at least
>> simple
>> > little bronze/silver/gold star stickers on the physical badges,
>> supported
>> > virtually by mozilla open badges (thanks spidr!), and a potential
>> > physical-stuff raffle for folks.
>> >
>> > Thanks! We'll iron the details of these thoughts our as all it gets
>> closer.
>> > For now, we'll just be prepared to tell potential reviewers that they
>> will
>> > be honored at various levels and may qualify for a raffle.
>> >
>> > Thanks!!!
>> > Katy
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Rocher <jrocher at enthought.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I am not sure how large/high quality that link is so I added a couple
>> of
>> > > image files we used last year in:
>> > >
>> https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/tree/master/images
>> > >
>> > > Hope this helps.
>> > > Jonathan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Anthony Scopatz <scopatz at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) <
>> > > > matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > /spidrin
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, I personally love stickers :-).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Is there an appropriate SciPy US Conference logo that we could
>> use?
>> > We
>> > > > > could stamp "Reviewer", etc on the logo for the design.  That
>> would
>> > be
>> > > > > sufficient for the logo design, unless there is someone with a
>> design
>> > > to
>> > > > > create a per-role design.  What was used on the spectacular
>> moderator
>> > > lab
>> > > > > coats last year?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > So the design we used was just the one on the website:
>> > > > http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/_static/scipyshiny_small.png However,
>> > > it
>> > > > was cropped and reshaded at the printer.  This doesn't help us a lot
>> > > > here...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > I can setup the virtual badges.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Awesome!
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > /spidrout
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Anthony Scopatz <
>> scopatz at gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> spidr,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I like the idea of virtual badges in support of physical ones.
>>  I am
>> > > > >> anti-stuff, personally, but I think it would be awesome to see
>> > people
>> > > > >> walking around the conference with collections of the various
>> ways
>> > > that
>> > > > >> they participated.  It would be a conversation starter.
>>  Hopefully
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > >> same way that the laptop stickers that James mentioned would be
>> > > > throughout
>> > > > >> the year.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> /scopzout
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matthew McCormick (thewtex) <
>> > > > >> matt at mmmccormick.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> +1
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Another badge to consider delivering: the Mozilla Open Badge,
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>   http://openbadges.org/
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> This is a formal, permanent way to recognize volunteer's
>> > > contributions.
>> > > > >>> They provide encouragement, something to display on a LinkedIn
>> > > profile,
>> > > > >>> etc.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Matt
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Bergstra <
>> > > > james.bergstra at gmail.com
>> > > > >>> >wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> > Great ideas guys, I would work for an "I reviewed for SciPy
>> 2013"
>> > > > >>> laptop
>> > > > >>> > sticker.
>> > > > >>> >
>> > > > >>> >
>> > > > >>> > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jonathan Rocher <
>> > > > jrocher at enthought.com
>> > > > >>> > >wrote:
>> > > > >>> >
>> > > > >>> > > Katy,
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > > I love your mathematical computation of how much is a
>> bajillion
>> > > at
>> > > > >>> the
>> > > > >>> > end
>> > > > >>> > > :D.
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > > I love these ideas. Last year, we had lots of things to
>> raffle
>> > > and
>> > > > >>> almost
>> > > > >>> > > not enough people/good opportunities/time to do these
>> raffles.
>> > We
>> > > > >>> could
>> > > > >>> > > also imagine a $50 discount on their registration, or a
>> special
>> > > > >>> tee-shirt
>> > > > >>> > > "SciPy Reviewer", or "Python Expert". But I like your ideas.
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > > Jonathan
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Katy Huff <
>> katyhuff at gmail.com>
>> > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > > > Hi Ya'll.
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > We're going to need a bajillion* reviewers for the
>> abstracts
>> > > and
>> > > > >>> > papers.
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > That worried me. BUT Anthony had a brilliant idea! He
>> > suggested
>> > > > we
>> > > > >>> > could
>> > > > >>> > > > get lots of extra reviews per reviewer if there was some
>> > > > incentive
>> > > > >>> to
>> > > > >>> > > > review more than 10 papers each. In particular he
>> suggested
>> > we
>> > > > >>> could
>> > > > >>> > > offer
>> > > > >>> > > > stickers on badges and an honorary note in the program for
>> > > > >>> reviewers at
>> > > > >>> > > > various "levels."
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > That way, when we invite people to become reviewers, they
>> > would
>> > > > be
>> > > > >>> told
>> > > > >>> > > > that they would be honored as "bronze level" for 10
>> reviews,
>> > > > >>> "silver
>> > > > >>> > > level"
>> > > > >>> > > > for 20 reviews, and "gold level" for 30 reviews. ( or
>> > something
>> > > > >>> like
>> > > > >>> > > that )
>> > > > >>> > > > Hopefully, this would encourage them to do more than 10
>> > > reviews.
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > Serge also suggested that we could add incentive by
>> raffling
>> > > > >>> something
>> > > > >>> > > > among the "gold" level folks as well. I think that would
>> be
>> > > > great.
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > So - Does anyone not love these ideas? Does anyone have a
>> > > better
>> > > > >>> one?
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > Can we get such stickers on the badges? (Probably this
>> > question
>> > > > is
>> > > > >>> > mostly
>> > > > >>> > > > directed at Andy & Kelsey & Leah). Are there things we
>> could
>> > > > >>> raffle?
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks!
>> > > > >>> > > > Katy
>> > > > >>> > > > (your friendly program co-chair)
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > * If we just think about the abstracts and assume 70%
>> > > conference
>> > > > >>> growth
>> > > > >>> > > > (i.e. 600 attendees), I think we need to be prepared for
>> 200
>> > > > >>> abstracts
>> > > > >>> > to
>> > > > >>> > > > be submitted, which means we need about 75 reviewers.
>> That's
>> > > > >>> > > approximately
>> > > > >>> > > > a bajillion.
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > > > --
>> > > > >>> > > > http://katyhuff.github.com
>> > > > >>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > > > >>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > > > >>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > > --
>> > > > >>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD
>> > > > >>> > > Scientific software developer
>> > > > >>> > > Enthought, Inc.
>> > > > >>> > > jrocher at enthought.com
>> > > > >>> > > 1-512-536-1057
>> > > > >>> > > http://www.enthought.com
>> > > > >>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > > > >>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > > > >>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > > > >>> > >
>> > > > >>> > _______________________________________________
>> > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > > > >>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > > > >>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > > > >>> >
>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________
>> > > > >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > > > >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > > > >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Jonathan Rocher, PhD
>> > > Scientific software developer
>> > > Enthought, Inc.
>> > > jrocher at enthought.com
>> > > 1-512-536-1057
>> > > http://www.enthought.com
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > http://katyhuff.github.com
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kristen M. Thyng
>> Postdoctoral Research Associate
>> Department of Oceanography
>> Texas A&M University
>> http://kristenthyng.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>
>
>


-- 
http://katyhuff.github.com

More information about the Scipy-organizers mailing list