Policy Council Winter Email Meeting Discussion (II)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:12:35 -0500
From: James Lyneis <
Subject: Motion on Revision to Policy 9 of Society Policies Regarding
Duties of Awards Committee
Dear Policy Council and Other Interested Parties,
A motion has been posted to revise Section 3 of the Policy 9 of Society Bylaws. The primary intent of this revision is to clarify the wording of that Section. The original wording is as follows:
The Awards Committee shall establish awards and procedures for selection with approval of the Policy Council for choosing recipients of awards to be made in recognition of outstanding contributions to system dynamics. The Committees will follow the approved procedures in selecting those to receive the designated awards.
The proposed new wording, as stated in the motion, is:
The Awards Committee shall, with the approval of the Policy Council, establish awards, define the procedures to be followed in making those awards, and appoint the committees responsible for administering the awards. The awards may be in recognition of outstanding work in System Dynamics or may take the form of scholarships to promote access to conferences and other activities related to System Dynamics.
To discuss this motion, send an email to , then reply OK to the automated response you will receive. Putting "Revision to Policy 9, Awards Committee Duties" in the title of your email to will make it easier to follow the discussion.
To vote on this motion:
1.. http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
2.. Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
3.. Find Motion and click on "details"
Jim Lyneis
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
Dear Policy Council and Other Interested Parties,
A motion has been posted to revise Section 3 of the Policy 9 of Society Bylaws.The primary intent of this revision is to clarify the wording of that Section.The original wording is as follows:
The Awards Committee shall establish awards and procedures for selection with approval of the Policy Council for choosing recipients of awards to be made in recognition of outstanding contributions to system dynamics. The Committees will follow the approved procedures in selecting those to receive the designated awards.
The proposed new wording, as stated in the motion, is:
The Awards Committee shall, with the approval of the Policy Council, establish awards, define the procedures to be followed in making those awards, and appoint the committees responsible for administering the awards. The awards may be in recognition of outstanding work in System Dynamics or may take the form of scholarships to promote access to conferences and other activities related to System Dynamics.
To discuss this motion, send an email to: , then reply OK to the automated response you will receive. Putting ‘Revision to Policy 9, Awards Committee Duties’ in the title of your email to will make it easier to follow the discussion.
To vote on this motion:
<A href=3D"http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb"color=3D#800080>http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb</A
Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
Find Motion and click on "details"
Jim Lyneis
James M Lyneis PO Box 121 Weston, VT 05161 (802) 824-4219
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:23:19 -0500
From: James Lyneis <
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
To give credit where it is due, Martin Schaffernicht not only organized the Peer Review Session, but also put together the summary report. Thanks Martin!
----- Original Message -----
From: Deborah Campbell
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:34 PM
Subject: Conference peer review ideas
Hi Jim and those interested in peer review of conference papers,
I was quite interested in and pleased by your summary of the discussion that occurred after last year's conference. I look forward to knowing about future meetings on this topic, as I find it of interest both personally and in my position to represent members.
My thoughts on the proposals and ideas expressed in the summary:
1) The idea of grouping papers by stage in the SD process in addition to application thread is very interesting. Many people attend sessions to find out how people have conceptualized a model, or formalized a model, or delivered actionable results to a client - in other words, to learn how people have implemented the process of SD as well as the particular application. Knowing ahead of time that you will (or will not) see what you are looking for would be very helpful. For example, as a practitioner, I find it difficult to target in advance sessions in which actual results - proposed and implemented - are presented, and this kind of grouping would be very valuable to me.
2) As for feedback to the reviewers, I think this is really important. I do not think feedback from authors would suffice, especially under the circumstance that a paper has been rejected and an author's feedback may not be constructive. I understand from previous meetings that thread chairs are too burdened with their own reviews and decision-making to take the time to give reviewers feedback. I think this is unfortunate, but I can't argue with the facts. As a viable alternative, I think the reviewers' workshop would be extremely valuable. This would not only serve to help current reviewers calibrate their reviews, but could set the expectations and standards for future reviewers as well. It would also provide a consistent set of standards that individual feedback from thread chairs might not. This workshop could be created by a group of past and current thread chairs in advance of their busy reviewing schedules. I strongly support this idea, and wonder what the PC needs to do to jump-start its implementation.
3) Finally, regarding the criteria for paper selection/rejection, I really liked the list of criteria ("must answeryes' to one of the following questions ."). The discussion about criterion number 5 - will the author learn from presenting the paper -- made me realize that we are dealing with conflicting objectives between why someone attends a conference and why someone attends a paper session. (By the way, ALL authors have an opportunity to learn from presenting their paper, even the most experienced. The question as I see it is how heavily weighted is the "learning" criteria relative to the others.) Here's my take on the conflict in objectives:
Reasons to attend a conference: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, 2) network with colleagues for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work, and 3) improve your own work by presenting it and getting feedback.
Reasons to attend a particular conference session: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, and 2) network with colleagues with similar interests for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work.
I suspect that most people rarely attend a specific conference session with the altruistic notion of doing so for the purpose of providing feedback to help the author(s) improve.
I'd like to suggest that, for papers which pass the selection criteria yet are heavily weighted on the "author will learn from the experience" criterion, we implement a paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium -- that we find a way through targeted sessions with volunteer, experienced audiences to get good, solid feedback to people who are motivated and working hard in SD, but need mentoring once a year. This would entail finding those altruistic among us who would be willing to attend sessions designed for providing this feedback (maybe even paper reviewers?). What do you think of this idea?
Thanks again for the interesting discussion and ideas,
Deb
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:48:20 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
In-Reply-To: <
Hi all,
Thanks Martin for your comments and for expressing your concerns about "session ghettos". I agree that we don't want these, and I think we can avoid them if we don't make the assumption that the farther along one is in the process the more significant the contribution is.
"Work-in-progress" is a pretty generic term, could be used for any of the multiple steps and iterations of the process, and could definitely reduce the interest of some attendees by making actual contribution at what stage unclear. What about alternatively encouraging authors to focus on the contribution they have made to date, regardless of where they are in the process?
If we have papers whose authors feel they have made contributions in conceptualization, or in an application area through the act of conceptualization, we could group those. Papers whose authors feel they've made contributions in formalization, or to an application area through the act of formalization, we could group those. And so forth. It is the actual contributions that authors have already made that we are interested in (and as the group's series of "yes" questions was seeking out), so couldn't these papers still be considered important contributions without the current state of the process diminishing them?
I continue to think that encouraging authors to clearly delineate in their abstracts where they are in the process with their work, and the contribution they have made to date, and grouping sessions this way, could be very healthy not only for authors but for attendees hoping to gain the most out of each paper/presentation.
Best regards,
Deb
-----Original Message-----
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Schaffernicht
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
Hi everyone,
I'd like to add some points to Deborah's message.
1. The possibility of grouping papers according to their stage would probably make it easier to plan which session to sit in during the conference. It would also make it easier for authors to be very clear in their papers' architecture, since it would be explicitly stated that "not complete" SD papers can be presented.
Then again, there is a connection with Debora's third point. (In the report, the five criteria for papers were in the same section as the paper typology issue.) Even though we have not defined that making a "contribution" requires a completed SD process, one can assume that the more the process has been completed, the more it is possible to speak of "contribution". A work in the early stages may well have a strong potential to contribute, but there is a difference.
I beleive that when you group papers that report "work-in-progress" into specific sessions, this may make them less attractive to a share of conference attendees who would otherwise find interest in the subject.
One alternative would be to have these papers state explicitly (in the abstract, for instance) that this is work-in-progress. This still makes session-selection easier but it does not generate "work-in-progress - ghetto sessions" (sorry for this expression). I think that this would be a good option for papers that, even though not reporting a completed process, are strong.
For the other papers, I like your proposition of a "paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium".
Would these papers still be in the proceedings? I ask this because for many of us, having their work in the proceedings is THE criterium for obtaining money from our universities.
2. About feedback to reviewers. This seems to be a delicate issue because of the lack of time of everybody. I'd find the "reviewers workshop" a good idea. I add to this that there might exist a set of illustrative examples of reviews (good ones and bad ones): in the 2007 peer review session, we've seen the difficulty to articulate criteria for goor reviews; however, we can usually tell a gooed review from a bad one. As long as this is a matter of tacit aspects, a set of examples can be helpful.
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Deborah Campbell < >:
Hi Jim and those interested in peer review of conference papers,
I was quite interested in and pleased by your summary of the discussion that occurred after last year's conference. I look forward to knowing about future meetings on this topic, as I find it of interest both personally and in my position to represent members.
My thoughts on the proposals and ideas expressed in the summary:
1) The idea of grouping papers by stage in the SD process in addition to application thread is very interesting. Many people attend sessions to find out how people have conceptualized a model, or formalized a model, or delivered actionable results to a client - in other words, to learn how people have implemented the process of SD as well as the particular application. Knowing ahead of time that you will (or will not) see what you are looking for would be very helpful. For example, as a
practitioner, I find it difficult to target in advance sessions in which actual results - proposed and implemented - are presented, and this kind of grouping would be very valuable to me.
2) As for feedback to the reviewers, I think this is really important. I do not think feedback from authors would suffice, especially under the circumstance that a paper has been rejected and an author's feedback may not be constructive. I understand from previous meetings that thread chairs are too burdened with their own reviews and decision-making to take the time to give reviewers feedback. I think this is unfortunate, but I can't argue with the facts. As a viable alternative, I think the reviewers' workshop would be extremely valuable. This would not only serve to help current reviewers calibrate their reviews, but could set the expectations and standards for future reviewers as well. It would also provide a consistent set of standards that individual feedback from thread chairs might not. This workshop could be created by a group of past and current thread chairs in advance of their busy reviewing schedules. I strongly support this idea, and wonder what the PC needs to do to jump-start its implementation.
3) Finally, regarding the criteria for paper selection/rejection, I really liked the list of criteria ("must answeryes' to one of the following questions ."). The discussion about criterion number 5 - will the author learn from presenting the paper -- made me realize that we are dealing
with conflicting objectives between why someone attends a conference and why someone attends a paper session. (By the way, ALL authors have an opportunity to learn from presenting their paper, even the most experienced.
The question as I see it is how heavily weighted is the "learning" criteria relative to the others.) Here's my take on the conflict in objectives:
Reasons to attend a conference: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, 2) network with colleagues for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work, and 3) improve your own work by presenting it and getting feedback.
Reasons to attend a particular conference session: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, and 2) network with colleagues with similar interests for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work.
I suspect that most people rarely attend a specific conference session with the altruistic notion of doing so for the purpose of providing feedback to help the author(s) improve.
I'd like to suggest that, for papers which pass the selection criteria yet are heavily weighted on the "author will learn from the experience" criterion, we implement a paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium -- that we find a way through targeted sessions with volunteer, experienced audiences to get good, solid feedback to people who are motivated and working hard in SD, but need mentoring once a year. This would entail finding those altruistic among us who would be willing to attend sessions designed for providing this feedback (maybe even paper reviewers?). What do you think of this idea?
Thanks again for the interesting discussion and ideas,
Deb
-------------------------------------------------
Este mensaje fue enviado por: http://webmail.utalca.cl
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:05:52 -0600
From: Edward Anderson <
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
In-Reply-To: <
Dear All,
A couple more comments on this thread:
A number of conferences (Academy of Mgt., INFORMS, etc.) have Invited sessions or symposia at which a session organizer invites respected scholars to present their work-in-progress. Sometimes these sessions have a discussant for each presentation or not depending on what deliverable is actually required for the invited session. These invited sessions are not to be confused with the "contributed" sessions which form the bulk of the INFORMS and POMS conferences. Invited sessions/symposia are typically quite interesting because they are more current than those in which completed papers need be submitted several months before-hand. Also, typically the session organizers will not risk inviting someone who would present poor work. As a final advantage, invited sessions provide input to the author at a time in which he or she can respond more effectively.
We did try this a couple of years ago at the ISDC with research sessions. However, they put a great deal of work on the session chair. Additionally, I don't believe the session chair had control over the presenters. So perhaps we can find an easier solution.
A final comment on appearing in the proceedings. For some of us, having our papers appear in the proceedings is NOT beneficial, because some editors at some jounals (notably, Linda Argote, when she was at Org. Science) did not want to have anything to do with papers that has already been published, even in a proceedings. (Although, she did make an exception for the AOM.) In any case, having the option not to publish in the proceedings, but appear in the program with an abstract only is an attractive alternative for some researchers.
I'd be interested in hearing any reactions.
Best Regards,
--Ed
Edward G. Anderson Jr., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Operations Management - IC2 RGK Centennial Fellow
University of Texas McCombs School of Business; 1 University Station B6500, CBA 3.430; Austin, TX 78712
512-471-6394; fax: 512-471-3937; ; www.edAnderson.org
"You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club." --Jack London
________________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members [ ] On Behalf Of Martin Schaffernicht [ ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
Hi everyone,
I'd like to add some points to Deborah's message.
1. The possibility of grouping papers according to their stage would probably make it easier to plan which session to sit in during the conference. It would also make it easier for authors to be very clear in their papers' architecture, since it would be explicitly stated that "not complete" SD papers can be presented.
Then again, there is a connection with Debora's third point. (In the report, the five criteria for papers were in the same section as the paper typology issue.) Even though we have not defined that making a "contribution" requires a completed SD process, one can assume that the more the process has been completed, the more it is possible to speak of "contribution". A work in the early stages may well have a strong potential to contribute, but there is a difference.
I beleive that when you group papers that report "work-in-progress" into specific sessions, this may make them less attractive to a share of conference attendees who would otherwise find interest in the subject.
One alternative would be to have these papers state explicitly (in the abstract, for instance) that this is work-in-progress. This still makes session-selection easier but it does not generate "work-in-progress - ghetto sessions" (sorry for this expression). I think that this would be a good option for papers that, even though not reporting a completed process, are strong.
For the other papers, I like your proposition of a "paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium".
Would these papers still be in the proceedings? I ask this because for many of us, having their work in the proceedings is THE criterium for obtaining money from our universities.
2. About feedback to reviewers. This seems to be a delicate issue because of the lack of time of everybody. I'd find the "reviewers workshop" a good idea.
I add to this that there might exist a set of illustrative examples of reviews (good ones and bad ones): in the 2007 peer review session, we've seen the difficulty to articulate criteria for goor reviews; however, we can usually tell a gooed review from a bad one. As long as this is a matter of tacit aspects, a set of examples can be helpful.
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Deborah Campbell < >:
Hi Jim and those interested in peer review of conference papers,
I was quite interested in and pleased by your summary of the discussion that occurred after last year's conference. I look forward to knowing about future meetings on this topic, as I find it of interest both personally and in my position to represent members.
My thoughts on the proposals and ideas expressed in the summary:
1) The idea of grouping papers by stage in the SD process in addition to application thread is very interesting. Many people attend sessions to find out how people have conceptualized a model, or formalized a model, or delivered actionable results to a client - in other words, to learn how people have implemented the process of SD as well as the particular application. Knowing ahead of time that you will (or will not) see what you are looking for would be very helpful. For example, as a practitioner, I find it difficult to target in advance sessions in which actual results - proposed and implemented - are presented, and this kind of grouping would be very valuable to me.
2) As for feedback to the reviewers, I think this is really important. I do not think feedback from authors would suffice, especially under the circumstance that a paper has been rejected and an author's feedback may not be constructive. I understand from previous meetings that thread chairs are too burdened with their own reviews and decision-making to take the time to give reviewers feedback. I think this is unfortunate, but I can't argue with the facts. As a viable alternative, I think the reviewers' workshop would be extremely valuable. This would not only serve to help current reviewers calibrate their reviews, but could set the expectations and standards for future reviewers as well. It would also provide a consistent set of standards that individual feedback from thread chairs might not. This workshop could be created by a group of past and current thread chairs in advance of their busy reviewing schedules. I strongly support this idea, and wonder what the PC needs to do to jump-start its implementation.
3) Finally, regarding the criteria for paper selection/rejection, I really liked the list of criteria ("must answeryes' to one of the following questions ."). The discussion about criterion number 5 - will the author learn from presenting the paper -- made me realize that we are dealing with conflicting objectives between why someone attends a conference and why someone attends a paper session. (By the way, ALL authors have an opportunity to learn from presenting their paper, even the most experienced. The question as I see it is how heavily weighted is the "learning" criteria relative to the others.) Here's my take on the conflict in objectives:
Reasons to attend a conference: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, 2) network with colleagues for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work, and 3) improve your own work by presenting it and getting feedback.
Reasons to attend a particular conference session: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, and 2) network with colleagues with similar interests for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work.
I suspect that most people rarely attend a specific conference session with the altruistic notion of doing so for the purpose of providing feedback to help the author(s) improve.
I'd like to suggest that, for papers which pass the selection criteria yet are heavily weighted on the "author will learn from the experience" criterion, we implement a paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium -- that we find a way through targeted sessions with volunteer, experienced audiences to get good, solid feedback to people who are motivated and working hard in SD, but need mentoring once a year. This would entail finding those altruistic among us who would be willing to attend sessions designed for providing this feedback (maybe even paper reviewers?). What do you think of this idea?
Thanks again for the interesting discussion and ideas,
Deb
-------------------------------------------------
Este mensaje fue enviado por: http://webmail.utalca.cl
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:10:54 -0300
From: Martin Schaffernicht <
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
In-Reply-To: <
Dear Ed,
the "invited" sessions sound interesting. It is not the answer to the "paper typology" question, but it surely helps making the conference more interesting.
In 2005, I was in a "research session". I did not find it useful, for the
following reasons:
- each presenter had only very few minutes (like 5);
- presenters did not know each other's subject and they were rather diverse;
- very short discussion time (1 - 2 minutes);
- very few interaction with the session chair.
Deborah's proposition to have something analogous to the PhD colloquium would sound better to me.
As for having the paper in the proceeding or not, I have to explain that in quite a lot of latinamerican univiersities, the pressure to publish in ISI journals is very high now. In the evaluation of our work as well as in applying for research funds, we are graded according to this. At the same time, in fields like management it is quite a challenge to have an ISI journal accept our works.
I know a number of people who use conference presentations as part of their work process to finish with a journal article (also from Europe). This does not mean you send the conference paper to a journal - rather you use the revielwers' comments and the conference discussion as an input to improve the final article.
Of cause I do not have representative knowledge of this issue. But I believe that many authors from countries similar to Latinamerica are in this situation.
Since other authors may prefer not to have their paper included in the proceedings, maybe there should be a way to opt out of the proceedings?
Best,
Martin
Mensaje citado por Edward Anderson < >:
Dear All,
A couple more comments on this thread:
A number of conferences (Academy of Mgt., INFORMS, etc.) have Invited sessions or symposia at which a session organizer invites respected scholars to present their work-in-progress. Sometimes these sessions have a discussant for each presentation or not depending on what deliverable is actually required for the invited session. These invited sessions are not to be confused with the "contributed" sessions which form the bulk of the INFORMS and POMS conferences. Invited sessions/symposia are typically quite interesting because they are more current than those in which completed papers need be submitted several months before-hand. Also, typically the session organizers will not risk inviting someone who would present poor work. As a final advantage, invited sessions provide input to the author at a time in which he or she can respond more effectively.
We did try this a couple of years ago at the ISDC with research sessions. However, they put a great deal of work on the session chair. Additionally, I don't believe the session chair had control over the presenters. So perhaps we can find an easier solution.
A final comment on appearing in the proceedings. For some of us, having our papers appear in the proceedings is NOT beneficial, because some editors at some jounals (notably, Linda Argote, when she was at Org. Science) did not want to have anything to do with papers that has already been published, even in a proceedings. (Although, she did make an exception for the AOM.) In any case, having the option not to publish in the proceedings, but appear in the program with an abstract only is an attractive alternative for some researchers.
I'd be interested in hearing any reactions.
Best Regards,
--Ed
Edward G. Anderson Jr., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Operations Management - IC2 RGK Centennial Fellow
University of Texas McCombs School of Business; 1 University Station B6500,
CBA 3.430; Austin, TX 78712
512-471-6394; fax: 512-471-3937; ;
www.edAnderson.org
"You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club." --Jack London
________________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[ ] On Behalf Of Martin Schaffernicht [ ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Conference peer review ideas
Hi everyone,
I'd like to add some points to Deborah's message.
1. The possibility of grouping papers according to their stage would probably make it easier to plan which session to sit in during the conference. It would also make it easier for authors to be very clear in their papers' architecture, since it would be explicitly stated that "not complete" SD papers can be presented.
Then again, there is a connection with Debora's third point. (In the report, the five criteria for papers were in the same section as the paper typology issue.) Even though we have not defined that making a "contribution" requires a completed SD process, one can assume that the more the process has been completed, the more it is possible to speak of "contribution". A work in the early stages may well have a strong potential to contribute, but there is a difference.
I beleive that when you group papers that report "work-in-progress" into specific sessions, this may make them less attractive to a share of conference attendees who would otherwise find interest in the subject.
One alternative would be to have these papers state explicitly (in the abstract, for instance) that this is work-in-progress. This still makes session-selectoin easier but it does not generate "work-in-progress - ghetto sessions" (sorry for this expression). I think that this would be a good option for papers that, even though not reporting a completed process, are strong.
For the other papers, I like your proposition of a "paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium".
Would these papers still be in the proceedings? I ask this because for many of us, having their work in the proceedings is THE criterium for obtaining money from our universities.
2. About feedback to reviewers. This seems to be a delicate issue because of the lack of time of everybody. I'd find the "reviewers workshop" a good idea. I add to this that there might exist a set of illustrative examples of reviews (good ones and bad ones): in the 2007 peer review session, we've seen the difficulty to articulate criteria for goor reviews; however, we can usually tell a gooed review from a bad one. As long as this is a matter of tacit aspects, a set of examples can be helpful.
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Deborah Campbell < >:
Hi Jim and those interested in peer review of conference papers,
I was quite interested in and pleased by your summary of the discussion that occurred after last year's conference. I look forward to knowing about future meetings on this topic, as I find it of interest both personally and in my position to represent members.
My thoughts on the proposals and ideas expressed in the summary:
1) The idea of grouping papers by stage in the SD process in addition to application thread is very interesting. Many people attend sessions to find out how people have conceptualized a model, or formalized a model, or delivered actionable results to a client - in other words, to learn how people have implemented the process of SD as well as the particular application. Knowing ahead of time that you will (or will not) see what you are looking for would be very helpful. For example, as a practitioner,
I find it difficult to target in advance sessions in which actual results - proposed and implemented - are presented, and this kind of grouping would be very valuable to me.
2) As for feedback to the reviewers, I think this is really important. I do not think feedback from authors would suffice, especially under the circumstance that a paper has been rejected and an author's feedback may not be constructive. I understand from previous meetings that thread chairs are too burdened with their own reviews and decision-making to take the time to give reviewers feedback. I think this is unfortunate, but I can't argue with the facts. As a viable alternative, I think the reviewers' workshop would be extremely valuable. This would not only serve to help current reviewers calibrate their reviews, but could set the expectations and standards for future reviewers as well. It would also provide a consistent set of standards that individual feedback from thread chairs might not.
This workshop could be created by a group of past and current thread chairs in advance of their busy reviewing schedules. I strongly support this idea, and wonder what the PC needs to do to jump-start its implementation.
3) Finally, regarding the criteria for paper selection/rejection, I really liked the list of criteria ("must answeryes' to one of the following questions ."). The discussion about criterion number 5 - will the author learn from presenting the paper -- made me realize that we are dealing with conflicting objectives between why someone attends a conference and why someone attends a paper session. (By the way, ALL authors have an opportunity to learn from presenting their paper, even the most experienced.
The question as I see it is how heavily weighted is the "learning" criteria relative to the others.) Here's my take on the conflict in objectives:
Reasons to attend a conference: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, 2) network with colleagues for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work, and 3) improve your own work by presenting it and getting feedback.
Reasons to attend a particular conference session: 1) improve your own work from seeing others' work, and 2) network with colleagues with similar interests for collaborative work opportunities and/or improving your own work.
I suspect that most people rarely attend a specific conference session with the altruistic notion of doing so for the purpose of providing feedback to help the author(s) improve.
I'd like to suggest that, for papers which pass the selection criteria yet are heavily weighted on the "author will learn from the experience" criterion, we implement a paper-presentation version of the Modeler's Workshop, or an all-persons version of the PhD colloquium -- that we find a way through targeted sessions with volunteer, experienced audiences to get good, solid feedback to people who are motivated and working hard in SD, but need mentoring once a year. This would entail finding those altruistic among us who would be willing to attend sessions designed for providing this feedback (maybe even paper reviewers?). What do you think of this idea? Thanks again for the interesting discussion and ideas,
Deb
-------------------------------------------------
Este mensaje fue enviado por: http://webmail.utalca.cl
-------------------------------------------------
Este mensaje fue enviado por: http://webmail.utalca.cl
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:58:33 -0000
From: Brian Dangerfield <
Subject: 2010 Conference
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
------_=_NextPart_001_01C86F2A.D4E2A566
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:03:21 +0100
From: Henk Akkermans <
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
In-Reply-To: <
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende
geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
--Apple-Mail-1--780781207
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:59:55 +1300
From: Bob Cavana <
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:25:57 -0300
From: Martin Schaffernicht <
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
In-Reply-To: <
Hi everybody,
Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people.
Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do with "diffusion" or "promoting".
However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society.
I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA), with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year.
Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...).
Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something like a "basline"? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences?
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of
Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:43 EST
From: David Packer <
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Martin Schaffernicht's note below and at least one other comment on the necessity of "making money on conferences" concerns me. I see the conference as a key strategic force for increasing the impact of system dynamics on a world that really needs it. I also see a Society that has substantial financial resources (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a Policy Council that has discussed the resulting opportunity for investment to build the field. With inputs from Martin and from Bob Cavana, it seems that the opportunity to make some good investments in the conference space that will yield long term positive returns needs to be a key element of our strategy.
Dave Packer
In a message dated 2/14/08 4:22:02 PM, writes:
Hi everybody, Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people. Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do with "diffusion" or "promoting". However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society. I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA), with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year. Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...). Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something like a "basline"? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences? Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
-------------------------------------------------
David W. Packer
Systems Thinking Collaborative
7 Chestnut Ln., Bedford, MA 01730
781.275.4056
www.stcollab.com
**************
Martin Schaffernicht's note below and at least one other comment on the necessity of "making money on conferences" concerns me. I see the conference as a key strategic force for increasing the impact of system dynamics on a world that really needs it. I also see a Society that has substantial financial resources (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a Policy Council that has discussed the resulting opportunity for investment to build the field. With inputs from Martin and from Bob Cavana, it seems that the opportunity to make some good investments in the conference space that will yield long term positive returns needs to be a key element of our strategy.
Dave Packer
In a message dated 2/14/08 4:22:02 PM, writes:
Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people.
Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do with "diffusion" or "promoting".
However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society.
I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA), with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year.
Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...).
Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something like a "basline"? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences?
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the 'time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:39:59 -0500
From: James Lyneis <
Subject: Voting Reminder
PC Members,
The voting is open for motions 101, 102, and 103. Voting closes on those motions on 19 February.
100: Disband Non-operational Ad Hoc Committees by David Andersen (Robert Eberlein) Y:2/N:0/A:0/NV:23 (voting closes 2008.02.19
101: Approval of the 2007 Summer Policy Council Meeting Minutes by Robert Eberlein (David Andersen) Y:3/N:0/A:0/NV:22 (voting closes 2008.02.19)
102: Increase Budget for Journal Support by Robert Eberlein (David Andersen) Y:3/N:0/A:0/NV:22 (voting closes 2008.02.19)
VOTING INSTRUCTIONS:
1. To place your vote, log in at
http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
2. Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
3. Find Motion and click on "details"
Jim
James M Lyneis
PO Box 121
Weston, VT 05161
(802) 824-4219
PC Members,
The voting is open for motions 101, 102, and 103. Voting closes on those motions on 19 February.
100: Disband Non-operational Ad Hoc Committees by David Andersen (Robert Eberlein) Y:2/N:0/A:0/NV:23 (voting closes 2008.02.19 101: Approval of the 2007 Summer Policy Council Meeting Minutes by Robert Eberlein (David Andersen) Y:3/N:0/A:0/NV:22 (voting closes 2008.02.19) 102: Increase Budget for Journal Support by Robert Eberlein (David Andersen) Y:3/N:0/A:0/NV:22 (voting closes 2008.02.19) VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: 1. To place your vote, log in at <"http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb">http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb2. Click on the button "Policy Council Menu" 3. Find Motion and click on "details"
Jim
James M Lyneis PO Box 121 Weston, VT 05161 (802) 824-4219
[still more]