Constructing a good conference schedule for a large multi-track conference needs to take into account the preferences and constraints of organizers, authors, and attendees. Creating a schedule which has fewer conflicts for authors and attendees, and thematically coherent sessions is a challenging task. Cobi introduced an alternative approach to conference scheduling by engaging the community to play an active role in the planning process. The current Cobi pipeline consists of committee-sourcing and author-sourcing to plan a conference schedule. We further explore the design space of community-sourcing by introducing attendee-sourcing -- a process that collects input from conference attendees and encodes them as preferences and constraints for creating sessions and schedule. For CHI 2014, a large multi-track conference in human-computer interaction with more than 3,000 attendees and 1,000 authors, we collected attendees' preferences by making available all the accepted papers at the conference on a paper recommendation tool we built called Confer, for a period of 45 days before announcing the conference program (sessions and schedule). We compare the preferences marked on Confer with the preferences collected from Cobi's author-sourcing approach. We show that attendee-sourcing can provide insights beyond what can be discovered by author-sourcing. For CHI 2014, the results show value in the method and attendees' participation. It produces data that provides more alternatives in scheduling and complements data collected from other methods for creating coherent sessions and reducing conflicts.
The most recent work in this area is Cobi @cite_2 which initially involves committee members to group papers and then invites the authors of the accepted papers to identify papers that would fit well in a session with their own, and which papers would they like to see. Cobi makes a design choice of giving the authors a list of 20 similar papers to choose from. While simplifying the task for authors, they can't indicate any paper outside the presented list (20 papers) as similar to their paper'', or would like to see''. We argue that it is possible to miss many paper-similarities because of such design.
@cite_2
2108376501 1608828583 2017082987 2068557399
Effectively planning a large multi-track conference requires an understanding of the preferences and constraints of organizers, authors, and attendees. Traditionally, the onus of scheduling the program falls on a few dedicated organizers. Resolving conflicts becomes difficult due to the size and complexity of the schedule and the lack of insight into community members' needs and desires. Cobi presents an alternative approach to conference scheduling that engages the entire community in the planning process. Cobi comprises (a) communitysourcing applications that collect preferences, constraints, and affinity data from community members, and (b) a visual scheduling interface that combines communitysourced data and constraint-solving to enable organizers to make informed improvements to the schedule. This paper describes Cobi's scheduling tool and reports on a live deployment for planning CHI 2013, where organizers considered input from 645 authors and resolved 168 scheduling conflicts. Results show the value of integrating community input with an intelligent user interface to solve complex planning tasks. This article introduces a suite of approaches and measures to study the impact of co-authorship teams based on the number of publications and their citations on a local and global scale. In particular, we present a novel weighted graph representation that encodes coupled author-paper networks as a weighted co-authorship graph. This weighted graph representation is applied to a dataset that captures the emergence of a new field of science and comprises 614 articles published by 1036 unique authors between 1974 and 2004. To characterize the properties and evolution of this field, we first use four different measures of centrality to identify the impact of authors. A global statistical analysis is performed to characterize the distribution of paper production and paper citations and its correlation with the co-authorship team size. The size of co-authorship clusters over time is examined. Finally, a novel local, author-centered measure based on entropy is applied to determine the global evolution of the field and the identification of the contribution of a single author's impact across all of its co-authorship relations. A visualization of the growth of the weighted co-author network, and the results obtained from the statistical analysis indicate a drift toward a more cooperative, global collaboration process as the main drive in the production of scientific knowledge. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 10: 57–67, 2005 Peer review has become the most common practice for judging papers submitted to a conference for decades. An extremely important task involved in peer review is to assign submitted papers to reviewers with appropriate expertise which is referred to as paper-reviewer assignment. In this paper, we study the paper-reviewer assignment problem from both the goodness aspect and the fairness aspect. For the goodness aspect, we propose to maximize the topic coverage of the paper-reviewer assignment. This objective is new and the problem based on this objective is shown to be NP-hard. To solve this problem efficiently, we design an approximate algorithm which gives a 1 3-approximation. For the fairness aspect, we perform a detailed study on conflict-of-interest (COI) types and discuss several issues related to using COI, which, we hope, can raise some open discussions among researchers on the COI study. Finally, we conducted experiments on real datasets which verified the effectiveness of our algorithm and also revealed some interesting results of COI. As part of the celebration of twenty-five years of ACM SIGIR conferences we performed a content analysis of all papers published in the proceedings of SIGIR conferences, including those from 2002. From this we determined, using information retrieval approaches of course, which topics had come and gone over the last two and a half decades, and which topics are currently "hot". We also performed a co-authorship analysis among authors of the 853 SIGIR conference papers to determine which author is the most "central" in terms of a co-authorship graph and is our equivalent of Paul Erdos in Mathematics. In the first section we report on the content analysis, leading to our prediction as to the most topical paper likely to appear at SIGIR2003. In the second section we present details of our co-authorship analysis, revealing who is the "Christopher Lee" of SIGIR, and in the final section we give pointers to where readers who are SIGIR conference paper authors may find details of where they fit into the coauthorship graph.