Uploading camera ready papers....

[Urquhart, Neil]

Dear All,

                Not sure who is responsible, but MyReview doesn’t seem to be setup to receive camera ready submissions yet. Could this be fixed.

 

Yours,

 

Neil

This message and its attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied, disclosed, forwarded or relied upon by any person other than the intended addressee(s) without the permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee you must not take any action based on this message and its attachment(s) nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please respond to the sender and ensure that this message and its attachment(s) are deleted. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and its attachment(s) are scanned for viruses or other defects. Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this message or its attachment(s), or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Emails entering Edinburgh Napier University's system are subject to routine monitoring and filtering by Edinburgh Napier University. Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373

[Sim, Kevin]

Hi Neil,

 

The camera ready stage should be open now.

Regards

 

Kevin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "evoAPPS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to evoapps+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to evo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evoapps/AM6PR0102MB34629C87126A01FCD72CE26CAB1F0%40AM6PR0102MB3462.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Urquhart, Neil]

The only link from http://www.evostar.org/2018/submission_camera_ready.php (at the bottom) doesn’t appear to take you to the appropriate part of myReview….?

 

NU

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evoapps/AM6PR0102MB34634A8737BD27969C49EBD4D51F0%40AM6PR0102MB3463.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[cag...@ce.unipr.it]

I don't want to insist on this, but this is what we wrote in the Call for
Papers:

"This year EvoApplications is accepting two kinds of submission: full
papers and short papers. Full papers require novel and complete research
work and have a limit of 16 pages. Short papers should present complete
research or interesting preliminary results and have a limit of 8 pages.
Both types of submission will undergo the same double blind review process
and all accepted papers will be included in the LNCS proceedings. Based on
reviewers’ assessment, accepted full papers will be presented as full
length talks, and authors of accepted short papers will present a short
talk as well as present a poster. All authors of accepted papers will be
given the opportunity to further disseminate their work in poster
sessions."

This means that *ALL* the authors of a papers submitted as 'full papers'
are expecting to be able to present their paper as a full talk.

If we do not specify clearly and soon enough that having 16 pages in the
proceedings does not imply that the paper is going to be presented as a
long talk we might have cases in which authors may even withdraw and ask
for a refund of the registration fee after their paper has been included
in the Proceedings, which would be a total mess...
That will be even worse if we tell them we cannot refund them because
their paper is already in the Proceedings and they HAVE TO come and give a
short presentation without advising them before about this possibility.
This, I think, actually means changing the rules set in the beginning!

We still have to submit the email with the instructions for the
camera-ready papers, so we can explain the situation there (and on the
corresponding web page).

In any case, I really cannot understand the reason to act as we are doing.
We never did so until last year, and that was a main cause for discontent.
As far as I know, we are the only conference that enforces this policy
(even if, luckily, only since last year...) which is only partially
justified by the problems that setting up an articulated program as ours
implies.

Please, pay very close attention to the consequences that this may have.

Stefano

[Sim, Kevin]

Hi Neil,

 

The link from the web site points to the login page for Apps at MyReview. You will need to log in and access the page you want from the authors menu.

.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evoapps/AM6PR0102MB346253CE2D657D97C1EBFC44AB1F0%40AM6PR0102MB3462.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Paul Kaufmann]

Dear all,

It would be fair to the authors and avoid negative feelings towards our conference if we either stick to the information and rules we have published and provided to the authors at our web page: 'Based on reviewers' assessment, accepted full papers will be presented as full length talks.' or communicate changes in the rules immediately. I guess it would be better to let the authors of accepted full papers that will not get the opportunity for a 'full length talk' the option to withdraw their work (for whatever reasons) instead of forcing them to come to the conference.

My experience: Few years ago, one of mine papers was accepted at a conference so I prepared slides for the talk. 1 month before the conference, after all reservations and flight ticket purchases have been done, the conference organizers have let me know that I have to present a poster. Poster presentation was ok to me BUT I had the feeling that either the conference organizers ere unable to find a venue with an appropriate capacity changing the presentation types opportunistically or the organizers have used a cheap trick to maximize the number of attendees. At the conference, I met some angry authors that have not been informed on presentation type change at all.

As Stefano pointed out: If all accepted full papers (regardless of the status ‘definitely accept as talk' or 'definitely accept as poster') will be presented by the authors in 15-25 mins talks, then no further emails detailing the presentation mode are required. If, however, there is a discrimination in how accepted full papers will be presented, it would be good indicating this to the authors now. Otherwise we have probably to face some negative feelings toward our conference, which could impact future submission numbers.

With best regards
Paul

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "evoAPPS" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to evoapps+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send an email to evo...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evoapps/f113abba5e4329f524ac3f1b4f4767d6.squirrel%40www.ce.unipr.it.

[Mengjie Zhang]

Hi all,

There are clearly pros and cons on all options --- they are essentially
located on the Pareto Front on the multiple criteria/objectives! I also
believe that all of us aim to make our conferences better and more
attractive as well as try to avoid potential problems.

My own experience: I have participated many EC conferences including
EvoStar, GECCO, SEAL, CEC and also some AI conference (like PRICAL,
IJCAI, PAKDD, AusAI) as a general chair, track chair, program/technical
chair, special session chair or a tutorial chair. For EvoStar, I have
been participating for 15 years without any break since 2003. From what
I have seen, different conferences have different style and their own
conventions. All the options we have been discussing have an example in
the past conferences. So it is hard to claim one particular style is the
best or wrong.

Having said that, I do have a feeling that we have a bit problem that we
have been changing our decisions too fast, which causes some
inconsistency. This could cause significant issues or complaints. From
this point of view, Stefano and Paul's points should be considered, I
believe, to protect our reputation. For this year, I suggest the
Steering Committee (Jennifer, SPECIES Reps, and Stefano as the local
Chair/Organiser?) make a final firm decision within two days by
considering all situations including the points raised by Stefano and
Paul. The key point is to finalise this very quickly.

From the next conference, the Organisers' meeting makes a solid
decision from previous year conference --- all the wordings for the
website, the format (including length) initial submission for review and
final camera-ready and also the presentation. Before the conference, the
Steering Committee prepare and circulate a draft wording for discussion,
and the Organisers' meeting makes decision for the next year's
conference. Any suggestions on changes the decisions can only be made
for the next year, and we all should stick to this. Otherwise, we will
continue to have this problem, which is not necessary in my opinion.

Cheers
Meng

[Francisco Fernandez de Vega]

Dear all:

As I already said before, although due to a different discussion, I don't like to change rules during the match.  

I agree with Kevin that the image of our conference deteriorates if we somehow change what was announced on the web.

Paco.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to evoapps+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send an email to evo...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evoapps/f113abba5e4329f524ac3f1b4f4767d6.squirrel%40www.ce.unipr.it.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "evoAPPS" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to evoapps+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to evo...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evoapps/2FFBF6EE-D2CD-4005-9384-B371A1826E30%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

fcofdez.wordpress.com
http://sites.google.com/site/fcofdezdevegaweb/


Dr. Francisco Fernández de Vega.
Senior Member IEEE.

Titular de Universidad.  Associate Professor.
Departamento de Tecnología de los Computadores y de las Comunicaciones.
http://fcofdez.wordpress.com/
http://www.unex.es/investigacion/grupos/gea
Universidad de Extremadura.
Tf:    924 67 30 35
Fax: 924 30 37 82
Centro Universitario de Mérida.
C/Sta. Teresa de Jornet, 38.
06800 Mérida - Badajoz.
SPAIN.

e-mail: fco...@unex.es
           fcofde...@gmail.com

[Urquhart, Neil]

I would agree with Paul, we should give authors as much details as is possible regarding presentations, publications etc. before we require them to register.

Neil

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/evoapps/2FFBF6EE-D2CD-4005-9384-B371A1826E30%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Anna Isabel Esparcia-Alcazar]

Dear all,

I hope the Three Wise Men (aka the Kings) brought you many presents today...

Regarding the changing of rules: the only new thing this year is that we accept the submission of short papers. 

Everything else is "business as usual":

- all accepted papers are "long" in the proceedings (this has been the status for the past 10 years, AFAIA)

- papers accepted as "talks" get a long talk (20') and the chance to bring a poster (change introduced last year)

- papers accepted as "posters" get a poster and the chance to give a short talk (5') (change introduced last year)

- we have only changed the "interactive presentation" wording of last year's into the somewhat more understandable "short talk".

We can also acknowledge that we f#ck3d #p with the wording of the CFP. Most of you know the way decisions are taken here, with many mails being exchanged and in the end nobody knowing what was finally agreed, so I don't think making mistakes is surprising at all.

We should correct it in the web ASAP and I will ask Pablo to do that.

Still, the reasons for sending the three notification mails stand as before.

Below is an excerpt of a mail I sent to the evoMUSART chairs (I think I have sent a similar reasoning to this list already, but just in case...)

--

In conferences with talks and posters (i.e. unlike PPSN), the posters are seen as second class (which indeed, they usually are), esp. if they are accompanied by a short paper (the "second class feeling" gets increased if authors with posters are asked to reduce a few pages their original submission)

Hence, and also as a result of the crisis, many institutions tend not to financially support authors to attend a conference if they are "only" going to present a poster.

We came up with the idea of not notifying authors till the last minute whether they had a talk or poster, so that they would register anyway. Of course, this would have been cheeky on us.

So, how about increasing the 'standing' and visibility of posters themselves by giving them a talk? 

At the same time, a poster session is a good way to communicate with an audience on a one to one basis; this is sometimes better than a 20 min talk, where time is more limited and shy students might be intimidated to ask questions. It is also a good way for those same shy students to get used to being "fried up" with the questions and comments, not only from people within their own track but also from others (that perhaps could not attend a talk that run in parallel with their own track)

So how about giving everybody the chance to get a poster? This would also increase the interest of the poster session (if people do not "skive" and go for a city tour instead, which is what happens quite often)

In the end we came up with the idea of the "interactive presentation" (based on what happens at PPSN). The problem last year was that nobody really understood what that was, so they just saw "oral presentation" and thought about the usual 20 min talk. Then, when they found out later that they had a poster they were pissed off, quite naturally.

So this year we want to make things clear from the start 

- everybody has a talk

- some talks are longer, and they are entitled to bring a poster (optional)

- some talks are shorter, and they must be supported by a poster (compulsory)

- whether a paper is in one category or the other will be notified by early March 

We can make no distinctions between EvoMUSART and the rest, because in that case Hell would be guaranteed.

A point you may rise is as follows: if everybody has a talk, then everybody will be happy to attend- so why not tell them right from the start?

The reason is that they have a mail they can show whoever it is that funds them, that contains the magic words "your paper has been accepted" and not much reference to a poster (that will come later).

--

What we finally agreed with MUSART (as I already told you in a previous mail) is that we would send 3 mails: 

1.- (general) acceptance -> already sent

2.- (general) camera-ready instructions -> coming out today or tomorrow

3.- (specific) form of presentation -> initially scheduled for early March but finally agreed that it would be sent ASAP

And yes, the acceptance template in myReview still says Mail #3 will be sent early March - It totally slipped my mind to change it. Sorry.

Regarding what I mention above about keeping the same length in the Proceedings for "posters" and "talks", and although I know Stefano strongly opposes this, it has already been discussed by the SPECIES board and the general consensus was that asking authors to shorten their papers with no second review process will definitely decrease their quality and is more prone to make authors withdraw their work than being assigned a short talk.

Finally, and going back to the breaking the rules issue, to me it's much more serious lying to authors about blind reviews that are not blind, than miswording the CFP about the length of talks.

Best,

A*