ConfBits: A Web Based Conference Management System

ConfBits is a Web-based Conference Management System (CMS) developed to aid effective organization and management of professional, academic and technical conferences. The web based application is an object-oriented and multi-conferences platform that is made up of four major actors which are authors, reviewers, administrators (otherwise known as Program Committee (PC) chair) and participants. Conference organizers in any Anglophone country can subscribe to the platform via the Internet to access and utilize the different features which include; abstract and full paper submissions, assignment of papers to reviewers, sending email notifications to authors and reviewers, participants management and conference program scheduling. The prototype of the platform is already deployed on the Internet and the trial Universal Resource Locator (URL) is www.cucms.com.ng. From our review of existing online CMSs, ConfBits (although still at a prototype stage) is the first of such system from a developing clime. We hope the platform will serve to bridge the hitherto wide digital divide between the developed and developing nations especially with respect to scholarly online content

AS-718-10 Resolution on Modification to Academic Program Review Procedures

Eliminates the Senate Executive Committee as the final approving body for appointment of internal reviewers; a summary report of program review findings will be presented to the Senate once a year

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Agenda, September 21, 2015

EPC Annual Report EPC Items September 2015 Honors Program Libraries Advisory Council Parking Committee 402.12.7(1) Add “University Service Award” to the list of the Faculty Evaluation Committee duties (Second Reading) 401.4.2.4 Proposal to change code to include state with federal Cooperators (First Reading) 405.7-12 allow for Presidential exceptions to external reviewers when teaching is the major role assignment (First Reading) FS Reapportionment Proposa

PANELS

A total of thirty-six panel proposals were received, twenty-nine from the United States and seven international. Each proposal was read by two outside reviewers and evaluated on the basis of 1) potential interest of the topic to the conference, 2) overall quality of the proposals, and 3) likelihood of the proposer being able to deliver a top quality panel. These recommendations were then passed to the Program Committee, which reviewed the evaluations and made the final selections. Of the thirty-six panel proposals, eight were selected for the conference. Based on discussion at the program committee: meetings, another eight panels were commissioned for a total of sixteen panels on the program. The review process insured a balance between relevance, quality and interest for the panel program

CONFSYS: The CINDI Conference Support System

This paper describes an online conference management system to be used by three groups of users, authors, reviewers and program chair(s). Authors can submit their papers on-line; the reviewers (program committee members) can use the system to select, in an on-line auction, the papers in their domain of expertise for review and later download and review papers assigned to them; and finally the program chair(s) can use the system to automatically perform an initial assignment of papers. This assignment is based on the reviewers’ preference from the auction process as well as certain guidelines used in avoiding conflict of interest. The system also facilitates the program committee in debating the review and converging to a decision about the papers. The authors can directly get the results of the review and the blind comments from the reviewers, online. This system is implemented using Java servlet communicating with a MySQL database server

USU Faculty Senate Minutes, October 5, 2015

Human Participants in Research Policy Code 584 –Mark McLellan Reducing the size of Faculty Senate Committees –Ronda Callister EPC Annual Report & EPC September Report –Larry Smith Honors Program –Kristine Miller Libraries Advisory Council –Britt Fagerheim Parking Committee –James Nye 402.12.7(1) Add “Faculty University Service Award” to the list of FEC Duties (Second Reading) –Jerry Goodspeed 405.7.2(1) Allow for Presidential exceptions to external reviewers when teaching is the major role assignment (First Reading) –Jerry Goodspeed 401.4.2(4) Proposal to change code to include State with Federal Cooperators(First Reading) –Jerry Goodspeed Faculty SenateReapportionment Proposal –Doug-Jackson-Smith New Business from the Floor –Committee on Committees assignments –Sheri Haderli

Message from the general chair

Journal ArticleI am very pleased to welcome all attendees to the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS) in New Brunswick, New Jersey on April 1-3, 2012. The conference represents the hard work of several organizing committee members and contributing authors. We all hope that the conference will be highly productive for every attendee. ISPASS has emerged as a premier forum for research on tools and performance analysis. This year's program continues that tradition. Dr. Viji Srinivasan of IBM T.J. Watson did an excellent job as program chair. She assembled a world-class program committee, and efficiently organized the reviewing and PC meeting. She was meticulous in her review assignments, which contributed greatly to a fair review process. I am very thankful to a dedicated program committee and external reviewers that spent many hours providing feedback to several authors. I'd also like to thank Dr. Mazda Marvasti (VMware) and Prof. Margaret Martonosi (Princeton) for agreeing to deliver keynote presentations. The conference is being kicked off with an excellent serving of workshops and tutorials on Sunday April 1st. I appreciate the efforts of Vijay Reddi (UT Austin) who served as the Workshop/Tutorial Chair. I also thank the organizers of the workshops and tutorials for the time they are putting into augmenting the ISPASS program

UDIT 2022 Preface

The Norwegian conference for education and didactics in IT (UDIT) is a track under the NIKT conference. The UDIT track deals with teaching computer science. Most of the presenters at NIKT are also teachers, and UDIT is meant to facilitate discussion between the staff of all IT departments in Norway on the pedagogical aspect of being a university professor, including teaching, supervision, assessment, etc. This is the third year that UDIT has its own volume in the conference proceedings, which should be seen as evidence that UDIT is no longer a newcomer, but a well-established part of NIKT. In addition, this is the eighth year that UDIT has been arranged as a separate track at NIKT. UDIT 2022 received 11 full paper submissions, of which the program committee accepted five for publication and two more for presentation. New this year is that 5-minute lightning talks have replaced the posters. Three lightning talks have been accepted for presentation this year. We want to thank all those who submitted a paper to UDIT2022. We would also like to give our sincere thanks to the program committee members and the external reviewers who did the essential job of reviewing the submissions. Without authors and reviewers, no conference! We expect you will enjoy this year’s version of NIKT, hosted by the University of Agder

Submission-Aware Reviewer Profiling for Reviewer Recommender System

Assigning qualified, unbiased and interested reviewers to paper submissions is vital for maintaining the integrity and quality of the academic publishing system and providing valuable reviews to authors. However, matching thousands of submissions with thousands of potential reviewers within a limited time is a daunting challenge for a conference program committee. Prior efforts based on topic modeling have suffered from losing the specific context that help define the topics in a publication or submission abstract. Moreover, in some cases, topics identified are difficult to interpret. We propose an approach that learns from each abstract published by a potential reviewer the topics studied and the explicit context in which the reviewer studied the topics. Furthermore, we contribute a new dataset for evaluating reviewer matching systems. Our experiments show a significant, consistent improvement in precision when compared with the existing methods. We also use examples to demonstrate why our recommendations are more explainable. The new approach has been deployed successfully at top-tier conferences in the last two years