LFG 2008 - First call for papers (revised)

[Josef van Genabith]

I agree with Chris' analysis.

The question is how to best achieve a good balance between quality and 
diversity.

I'd put emphasis on quality for the main session of the conference: an 
LFG conference which has two good papers (no matter what authors and/or 
subject areas) is more interesting than the one with one good paper and 
perhaps another more mediocre paper (which got in due to some 
restrictions on number of submissions (author/subject area etc.)).

Diversity can (and should) be supported by the other instruments 
available to us: including poster sessions, workshops, student sessions 
and panels.

Best regards,

Josef

chris brew wrote:
> I'm an interested observer, not (yet) a regular submitter to LFG 
> conferences, but:
>
> - By restricting submissions, you run the risk of missing the best 
> work, if it so happens that
>   someone is doing more good work than you expect. If you do not 
> impose restrictions, you run the      risk that fewer research groups 
> will have accepted papers, so some people who would benefit from
>  attending the conference do not do so. 
>
> - If reviewing standards are high enough to ensure that bad work is 
> rejected and good work accepted, it doesn't matter whether multiple 
> submissions are allowed or not, since the strategy of gaming the 
> system by producing multiple submissions of less polished work will fail
>
> - if there is evidence that people are trying to game the system in 
> this way, and that the reviewing process is failing to handle it 
> appropriately, two possible solutions exist. Either impose 
> restrictions or tighten the reviewing process. If there is no such 
> evidence, why bother with the restrictions anyway?
>
> - The role of conferences is different in different subfields. At some 
> conferences the work presented is typically high-quality finished 
> research, at others the intent is to provide a venue for work in 
> progress.
> Often, a publication in one of the former conferences has as large an 
> effect on the future of the author as does a publication in a good 
> journal. If this is happening, fairness dictates that the review 
> process should be entirely focussed on ensuring that the best work 
> gets in. Most CL conferences are like this. You can argue about 
> whether the reviewing process is indeed achieving these goals, but 
> everybody agrees that the attempt should be made. It would be 
> unfortunate if someone was denied the crucial publication because of 
> rules that are not quality-related. 
>
> This is not so critical if the intent is to provide a venue for work 
> in progress, and not so much rides on acceptance and rejections. In 
> that case I think restrictions could make sense. Maybe the LFG 
> community has to decide what the conference is for?
>
>
>
> On 03/11/2007, *A. B. Bodomo* < abbodomo at yahoo.com.hk 
> <mailto:abbodomo at yahoo.com.hk>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>     I support this move to have a restriction on the number of papers
>     we submit at LFG conferences. Indeed, this move should have
>     been made long ago. For me the LFG conferences are Linguistics
>     conferences and most Linguistics conferences, like the annual LSA
>     conference, already have this wise idea of restricting the number
>     of submissions. I don't think it would be such a good idea to rely
>     on people restricting themselves the way we expect it. It is
>     natural for people to want to maximise their chances of getting
>     accepted by submitting as many as possible. For me, the
>     restriction should be the standard one at Linguistics conferences:
>     at most one single authored paper and one joint paper, but I am
>     fine with this middle of the road solution by our Executive
>     Committee since I understand Computational Linguistics
>     conferences do something different from General Linguistics
>     conferences.
>      
>     I would like to see more diversity in the topics, areas,
>     backgrounds, and languages presented at LFG conferences and this
>     should, of course, not be achieved at the expense of quality,
>     since all papers still have to pass through "anonymous" peer reviews.
>      
>     Best,
>     Adams
>
>
>     */Martin Forst < mforst at parc.com <mailto:mforst at parc.com>>/* wrote:
>
>         Dear Josef, dear all,
>         > does anybody know the reason for the new restriction on the
>         number of
>         > submissions (see below) in the revised call for papers for
>         LFG 2008?
>         The Executive Committee introduced this restriction in order
>         to secure
>         diversity in the papers.
>         The rationale behind this goal is that quality is of course
>         crucial for
>         a conference program, but breadth is important, too.
>
>         Although we (i.e. the Program Committee - lfg08 at easychair.org
>         <mailto:lfg08 at easychair.org>) do not
>         expect the restriction to rule out a lot of potential
>         submissions, we
>         are interested in knowing what people think about it, in
>         particular if
>         they are opposed to it. Please let us know your arguments and,
>         even more
>         importantly, the number of additional abstracts you would have
>         submitted
>         if the restriction did not exist. The Executive Committee will
>         consider
>         these in the decision of whether to keep the restriction for
>         LFG 2009.
>
>         Best regards,
>
>         Martin
>
>
>
>