PDCon07 peer review process - Pd-list

2 Oct 2007 · _not_

      On 30-Sep-07, at 5:45 PM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
...
yeh i think people understand me when i complain
about MB's spam, and also, about the fact that the pd
convention was MB convention
( of course, when you're in the convention comittee
and that you worked previously
with all the curators out there ),
This was brought to my attention and I feel I need to respond to it.
I have no interest in getting involved in personal squabbles here.
(I suggest you take such things 'out back': off-list.)
I do, however, take very great exception with the imputation that the

selection processes for PDCon07 artistic events or papers sessions

were done in anything less than strict conformance with established

international norms for such things.
A couple of clarifications:
Matthieu Bouchard was on the steering committee, not the executive,

he did not have a say in final decisions which were made.
Everyone who worked on PDCon07 worked extremely diligently for long

hours over the period of a year. The amount of hours which I put in

caused me some serious problems where I work and with my ongoing PhD

thesis. Organising the papers sessions often felt like a completely

thankless job and I had to question myself on a regular basis whether

it was all worth it. To have it suggested flippantly - after all the

blood, sweat and tears - that the selection process was somehow

rigged or not fair is very distressing. It really hurts. I'm sure the

other members of the executive feel the same way.
At the end of the day, I justified it to myself this way: free and

open-source tools like Pd are increasingly essential for musicians

and artists to do their work. As someone who used to work in

sculpture with wood, stone and steel, I know intimately that the

quality of the work you do depends - amongst other factors - on

having reliable tools. The same is true for computer music and media

art. Commercial tools for computer music and media art are becoming

increasingly expensive and unreliable at the same time. We need tools

like Pd. At the same time it seems to me that Pd is at a crucial

stage in its evolution and significant changes are happening. So, the

papers sessions were seen as a way of enabling the important

discussions which need to happen to go forward. I wanted to put the

ideas proposed by the diverse members of the Pd community into a

context of calm, respectful - yet vigourous - debate and discussion.

I wanted to put the best ideas into the clear light;  and let those

ideas be seen and discussed based on their own merits. To enable

this, the selection process had to be as fair and transparent as

possible, and so it was.
As I had nothing to do with the artistic selection process I cannot

comment on that.
I was, however, the papers chair and did manage that process so I

will outline to you exactly how the decisions were made:

Calls for papers were made and 44 submissions were made via the

web interface.

Suggestions for potential peer reviewers were requested from

within the local Pd community.

A list of potential reviewers was compiled and invitations were made.

Slightly less than half of those invited did accept.

Submissions were assigned to reviewers with at least 3 reviewers

per paper.
(there was one exception to this as one of our reviewers bailed out

at the last minute, this particular case was brought to the executive

for discussion and the paper was in fact accepted)

Reviews were compiled and a cut-off score was decided (4.0 of a

possible 6.0). All papers above this threshold were accepted. (Note:

Matthieu Bouchard was listed as principle or secondary author on 4

submissions, 3 of which were accepted, all with a score of 4.0 or

higher.)

A small number of papers below this threshold which broached

subjects judged to be important to the Pd community.were accepted for

reasons of universal interest and thematic consistency. A total of 26

papers were finally accepted.

The authors were informed of the results and comments from the

reviewers were passed on.

Most authors re-submitted revised versions of their papers taking

into account the comments of the reviewers.

Most authors did come and present at PDCon with a small number

unable to attend due to financial or other issues.
Anyone who has any questions, issues or complaints about the papers

review process for PDCon07, please contact me directly at:
pdcon.papers@gmail.com
Anyone who has any questions, issues or complaints about the artistic

review process for PDCon07, please contact Marc Fournel directly at:
fournel.marc@gmail.com
Thanks once again to all who participated in PDCon07 and especially

to those who submitted papers presented at PDCon and helped so

greatly by reading and reviewing submissions for us.
best regards,
Andrew Brouse
Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
=====
Andrew Brouse
PDCon07 Papers Chair
pdcon.papers@gmail.com
http://pure-data.ca/