discussing the maybes
We’ve determined the clear accepts and the clear rejects, and are going through the thirty or so maybes. Everyone read a few extra papers last night and this morning and after lunch today, so each paper is fairly represented, in addition to the reviewers’ reports (most papers have three or four reviewers reports) and we’re going through them one by one. Some of the papers are so technical that I can’t really understand them, but what’s interesting is that the technical papers I can understand are the ones that everyone else also agrees are good papers. There are a lot of different ways of making technical papers hard to read. The most common is that the authors don’t actually explain what their system does. One thing I like about the Hypertext conferences is the mixture of humanities and literary papers, too, and there are some good humanities and literary papers this year.
Most common reasons for rejection:
- Doesn’t answer stated research questions.
- The paper’s not about what it says it’s about.
- Doesn’t reference important related research
- A key term (like “narrative” or “adaptive”) is used in an unestablished or naÔve or unusual way without any discussion.
- Unclear contribution, not clear what they’ve done that’s new
- Premature, they haven’t finished the project yet.
- Not about hypertext at all.
- Already published elsewhere.
Everyone’s rather tired, I think. We’ve been reading and discussing for hours and hours. But there aren’t many papers left, and we’ve done a good job, I think. About 30% of the papers will be accepted, and some of them are really interesting. Actually they’re probably all interesting, but I mean really interesting to me, of course. There’s short papers too. They’re not due for another few weeks.