DRS2008 » FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Actually most of these were only asked once but they seem worth sharing.
There is also a more detailed Reviewer FAQ here.

I am presenting a paper and would like to know what format I can bring my presentation in.
We will post full details of technical requirements and the provision of audio-visual equipment available to presenters early next week, so watch this space.
In the meantime, to download the university's standard audio-visual guidelines for the conference venue, click here: DRS08 AV guidelines.doc]
I'm confused about the formatting instructions for full papers. I've used the paragraph styles you recommend but my paper does not look like your example.
That's OK. As long as you user the paragraph styles we have asked for we will be able to control the final appearance. But DON'T try to change the appearance manually. Here is an explanation>
I did not receive my abstract review on time and there is little time before the 1st April Deadline.
If you received the decision on your extended abstract after 1st April we are sorry about the inconvenience. Please submit your full paper by 15 May. We will make every effort to review all papers received but the earlier you submit it the more time there is for review and amendments.
I have removed the author's names from my full paper submitted for review. Who will make sure they are included?
When papers are accepted we will ask authors to send us a final version with any corrections requested, including adding the authors names and biographies and completing any references to authors publications.
Will my original extended abstract be published?
No, we will use the 300 word abstract from your full paper in the conference abstracts book given to all delegates.
I can't find what I am looking for in the Conference Management System
The Open Conference Systems Software (OCS) works pretty well but the interface is not very clear; important links are difficult to spot. We have produced a visual guide to using OCS as an author or reviewer.
I've been asked to review some papers - what do I do next?
Full details are provided on the Guidance and Documentation for reviewers page and answers to some common queries on reviewing on the Review FAQ page.
I've submitted my paper and haven't heard anything more - what happens next? I need to make travel arrangements if I'm coming to Sheffield this summer.
We want to ensure that all proposals are given proper consideration. The papers are currently being reviewed and authors will be notified once we have received the reviews. Reviewers are currently allowed 3 weeks, so we hope to notify most authors mid-May. The deadline for submitting full papers was 1st April.
Which citation style are paper submissions are expected in?
Citatation style and other instructions for the full papers will be available before referees' feedback is sent.
How do I ensure that images in my paper are not too big? (Big files may not upload)
For viewing on screen the image need not be bigger than 1024 x 768 pixels. Smaller sizes are often suitable.
If you do not have special image editing software like Photoshop you can still do this. Most Windows computers will have a copy of Microsoft Photo Editor or something similar.
Open the file in Photo Editor (double-clicking on the file will probably do this). Use "save as" to save a copy of the image separate from your original (you don't want to change your original)
Open Image>Resize, Change the units to "pixels"
Type 1024 or a smaller number in the "width" box to set the new size
Click on OK, the image will change size, save it and use it in your document.
Question about removing your own name from references
While uploading my abstract I found this: "Authors' names are removed from submission, with "Author" and year used in the bibliography and footnotes, instead of authors' name, paper title, etc." Does it refer to the references? If this is correct, could you send me an example of this? I'm using the Harvard style.
You probably understand this but just in case I'll start by saying that this rule is intended to ensure that we have true double blind refereeing, it's normal practice in many journals and conferences and a standard part of the software we use. When you submit the final version of the paper you'll be asked to restore the correct references, so this is just a temporary measure for refereeing.
My approach is that, if you are citing your own publication, without indicating it is by the author, there is no need to change the bibliography entry. You can sometimes do this by altering the citation temporarily eg "the author has previously argued (Rust, date).." could become "Rust (date) has argued..."
If it is clear that the citation is of your own work (eg when referring to earlier work in the same project) then you just have to use "(Author, 2006)" or "the author (2006) has published..." etc and in the bibliography just put "Author (date)" or you could be creative and say something like "Author (date) refereed paper describing..." as appropriate to help understanding.
I hope this is clear, it's irritating but if we have double blind refereeing it's necessary to follow through all its consequences. My preference is for open refereeing with author and referees all named and their comments and drafts in public but that's deeply scary to a lot of people.
You probably realise this but no citation system is comprehensive enough to deal precisely with every eventuality, especially in design where we sometimes cite unconventional sources, and this is one area where a little care and thought can help to ensure understanding.
I've registered on the Conference Management System but I cannot see how to submit an abstract
[n.b. The system is now closed to new submissions] We've had a couple of problems reported by contributors to the conference who have registered with the conference management system but are unable to see the menus for submitting their abstracts.
This is easily avoided if you know what to do.
When you subscribe you have to fill in a form with information like name, password, email etc.
The "required" items are marked with an asterisk in the usual way so that's easy.
But there are two boxes at the bottom to indicate whether you are an author a reviewer or both. You MUST tick the Author box (if you tick the reviewer box as well we'll probably contact you to discuss how you can help)
Unfortunately the software will let you subscribe without ticking these boxes but then all you see is a basic menu which does not include information about the conference.
If that happens don't worry. Just go to "My Profile" and tick the box at the bottom for "Author" click on save and you'll have full access. I've reported this to the OCS software people in Canada but I don't suppose they'll be able to change their software in time to help us. - chrisrust Nov 28, 2007 11:28 am
How will the proceedings be published?
At the conference, each delegate will receive a conference abstracts book and programme together with a CD of the full papers.
The full proceedings will also be available online in an archive that conforms to the Budapest Open Access protocol to ensure that papers are found by academic search engines such as Google Scholar
We are also investigating whether printed copies of the proceedings can be made available online for a reasonable price through a print on demand distributor such as lulu.com
Can I publish my work in a Journal following the conference?
We encourage you to seek opportunities to develop your work further for publication in a journal or book. More information here.
Can I exhibit work rather than presenting a paper?
We do not plan an exhibition as such but are willing to discuss proposals for exhibiting or demonstrating work. The purpose MUST be to demonstrate and disseminate valid research. We suggest you submit an abstract in the normal way describing the research and outlining your proposals for presentation. The abstract can include one page of images. The submission software includes a "note for Director" box where you can draw attention to any non standard presentation methods you propose.
Why must I remove my name from my proposal?
We are using the double blind review process, meaning that authors and reviewers will not know each others' identities. This ensures that reviewing is impartial and not based on knowledge of individuals or their reputations. You will be able to put your name back in the paper and citations when the full version has been accepted.