Urgent: Proposal Review
Dear Program Committee members,
First my apologies for being so behind… in addition doing my regular consulting work, developing a new hybrid conference for this year, rethinking MW membership, learning the website coding, I had to learn how to do what Nancy made seem easy. I tried to make sure I assigned the best reviewer to each paper by reading and researching those of you I don’t know well and seeing what those of you I do know have been up to (thank you LinkedIn and social media!) as well as occasionally gone down a coding rabbit hole trying to see if I could automate more of the process for next year. Thankfully I think I can… so next year this should be on time and much easier for you and I (unless some new crisis comes)!
In the context of this being my fault and knowing that you likely have as much on your on your plate as I do I feel very bad to ask you to expedite your reviews but I need to get the program posted as soon as possible since it should have been up a week ago But unfortunately I still I need to beg you to hurry so that I can assemble the program.
I think we have a great bunch of proposals and I am so thankful to you for helping. Each of you have around 10 to review. With our revised schedule need your reviews completed by December 15th. If because of my delay you cant make it no problem just let me know now so I can reassign your reviews.
If all your papers are reviewed on time you will get a free membership which provides free registration for the virtual conference and also provides a discount on the in person conference (details to follow).
Please also let me know now if you have conflicts of interest in reviewing any of the papers assigned to you.
Click on each proposal title in the list you’ll see on this page to read the full proposal and author details.
- Provide your comments, select a score and click “UPDATE” for each review.
- The legend for the scoring system is on every page between the score pull down and the submit button
- If you have any technical problems, please let me know.
- Let me know ASAP if you have a conflict reviewing any of these proposals and we will reassign them.
- Please complete your reviews and ratings no later than December 15th. If you think you will not be able to complete your reviews by this date, please let me know ASAP.
- There will be a second round of reviewing in the first two weeks of January for demonstrations and lightning talk proposals. You are not obliged to participate in this round if you won’t have time.
- Your comments and scores will only be visible to me. I will pass on your suggestions and requirements for improving proposals to the authors in personalized emails that synthesize all reviewers’ comments and also give a context for where the presentation will appear in the program. Authors really appreciate your feedback on how their paper and presentation might be improved.
SOME TIPS ON REVIEWING:
You can reference the proposal types here.
If you like a proposal but think it should be presented in a different format (e.g. as a Lightning Talk rather than a Formal Paper, or a half-day Workshop rather than a How-to session), you can make this suggestion in the comments box and note how your score for the paper would change if the proposal were considered for a different section of the program. The authors of the proposals very much appreciate your feedback, which you can also leave in the comments box. MW is very competitive, with fewer than 1 in 3 proposals getting into the final program, so be choosy in your rankings!
- In particular that we prefer case studies and single project presentations be reserved for Demonstrations;
- Formal Papers will likely reference specific projects of course, but should do so in a higher level, analytic way that derives best practices and advances in museum work which others can apply at their museums;
And as always, we too are eager to hear your feedback on the website, workflow, and any new ideas you have for improving them and #MWXX!
All the best,