ISDC Paper Review Process

[Tignor Warren W. WARREN.W.TIGNOR]

Posted by ""Tignor, Warren W."" <WARREN.W.TIGNOR@saic.com>
I'm curious about the membership's general experience with the International
System Dynamics Conference (ISDC) call for papers feedback.
Please think about this crucial part of our ISDC experience and comment on
the following:

1. Was ISDC feedback professional, fair and helpful?
2. If you were an ISDC reviewer, was the experience rewarding?
3. If you have feedback experience from other venues, how does it compare
to ISDC's?

My general comments are that the feedback is helpful and fair. I have found
reviewing papers to be rewarding. For me the ISDC feedback is far superior
to other venue feedback.

I think that ISDC's review process is a silent partner that makes our
conferences so successful. However, there is always room for improvement.
What do you think?

Cheers!

Warren Tignor
wtignor@ieee.org
Posted by ""Tignor, Warren W."" <WARREN.W.TIGNOR@saic.com>
posting date Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:40:37 -0500

[John Gunkler jgunkler sprintmail]

Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
I find the reviewing process to be very rewarding, especially when I can
help someone present an even better paper.

I would like it very much, however, if the ultimate decision about the
paper/presentation were to be sent to me via email so I could ""close the
loop"" and know what happened. All we reviewers have are titles, and those
sometimes change (plus there are a lot of papers presented) so it's
difficult to know sometimes if our reviewed papers made it and, if so, in
what part of the conference they were presented.
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
posting date Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:39:32 -0600

[Paul Holmström ph holmstrom.se <]

Posted by Paul Holmstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m <ph@holmstrom.se>
I had a paper reviewed last year. The feedback was indeed professional, fair
and helpful. As this was my first presentation, the reviews were very
valuable. It was great to get comment from several reviewers, it gave
different perspectives.

The reviewers had very helpful comments about things that needed
clarification. One pointed out a sloppy assumption, which could have been an
embarrassment during question time at the conference. One reviewer asked
about the possible extensions of the model, which were valuable to elaborate
on.

Two reviewers were critical about parts of model behavior. As that
particular behavior was intended and a significant part of the model, I
realized that the paper was not clear enough on that issue, so I revised and
clarified the paper accordingly.

Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:50:36 +0100

[Warren Tignor wtignor ieee.org <]

Posted by ""Warren Tignor"" <wtignor@ieee.org>
John,

I agree and hope the ISDC will accommodate your suggestion. I also find
myself searching the ISDC agenda to see whether papers I reviewed were
accepted. As obvious as it is to expect this feedback, I never thought of
it before.

Thank you for your observation!

Cheers,

Warren Tignor
wtignor@ieee.org
Posted by ""Warren Tignor"" <wtignor@ieee.org>
posting date Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:47:04 -0500