PORT 2002 Workshop Submissions Review

PORT <port-peer-review@bootstrap.org>


How to manage review process for 2002 workshop submissions?    (3542)

Convert submitted papers into HTML with purple numbers    (3551)

References: eekim@eekim.com (Apr 30, 2002)

Discuss papers on port-peer-review@bootstrap.org    (3556)

References: eekim@eekim.com (Apr 30, 2002)

Use purple numbers to reference paragraphs in papers    (3660)

Dialog map mailing list discussion daily    (3562)

References: eekim@eekim.com (Apr 30, 2002)

Submissions?    (3575)

How WebKB Could Contribute to PORT    (3580)

References: eekim@eekim.com (May 1, 2002)

"How WebKB Could Contribute to PORT" review    (6557)

La Barre/Dent review Martin    (6380)

On the Practical Bearings of Peirce's Maxim    (3586)

By Janos J. Sarbo
References: eekim@eekim.com (May 6, 2002)

"On the Practical Bearings of Peirce's Maxim" review    (3671)

Martin reviews Sarbo    (6384)

Martin feels unqualified to review Sarbo    (6487)

Creating Conceptual Access    (3622)

References: eekim@eekim.com (May 10, 2002)

"Creating Conceptual Access" review    (6535)

DeMoor reviews La Barre/Dent    (6376)

Making Doug's Dream Come True    (3627)

References: eekim@eekim.com (May 15, 2002)

"Making Doug's Dream Come True" review    (6541)

Sarbo reviews DeMoor    (6388)

Review assignments?    (6371)

References: mkeeler@u.washington.edu (Jun 17, 2002)

La Barre/Dent review Martin    (6380)

Martin reviews Sarbo    (6384)

Martin feels unqualified to review Sarbo    (6487)

DeMoor reviews La Barre/Dent    (6376)

Sarbo reviews DeMoor    (6388)

Relations between submissions?    (8041)

Martin represents divergent view from La Barre/Dent    (7482)

Each paper like a blind man describing different parts of an elephant    (8053)

Inefficiencies in review process?    (6310)

Technology    (6314)

References: mkeeler@u.washington.edu (Jun 16, 2002)

Textual errors make interpretation inefficient    (6338)

References: mkeeler@u.washington.edu (Jun 16, 2002)

How can we improve the process?    (6321)

Individuals should be vigilant about correcting their own papers    (6325)

"Weeding our own gardens."
References: mkeeler@u.washington.edu (Jun 16, 2002)

Assign individuals papers to review publicly    (6345)

References: mkeeler@u.washington.edu (Jun 17, 2002), ademoor@kub.nl (Jun 18, 2002)

Ensures every paper reviewed at least once    (6509)

Encourages open process    (6517)

Need an improvement process    (6352)

References: mkeeler@u.washington.edu (Jun 17, 2002)

Draw relations to other submitted papers    (6358)

General weakness of ICCS is that it does not do that with its submissions.
References: mkeeler@u.washington.edu (Jun 17, 2002)

Authors should review everyone else's papers    (6501)

Skip review process entirely    (6427)

References: janos@cs.kun.nl (Jun 18, 2002)

Small number of submissions    (6434)

Workshop character of meeting    (6438)

Can learn something from this process    (6460)

Purpose of paper reviewing?    (6448)

Helps make useful reports    (6453)