LFG 2008 - First call for papers (revised)

[A. B. Bodomo]

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> 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) 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lfg/attachments/20071103/6d9c8cbe/attachment.htm>