CEC Program Chair Guide

Call for Papers

-      Have paper management system figured out prior to CFP distribution

-      Work on email distribution list prior to CFP distribution

o  Think about ways to distribute CFP beyond traditional academic circles (industry supporters, alumni groups, etc.)

-      CFP content

o  Be clear that abstract should be submitted anonymously

o  Be clear that it is a present-to-publish conference

o  Be clear that overall process includes abstract review/acceptance, then paper submission, then paper review/acceptance

o  Should CFP include mention of posters as more of a draw for industry folks?

-      Distribute CFP in late August/early September the year prior to the conference

Abstracts

-      Coordinate abstract/paper reviewers

o  Two reviews per submission

o  Good to have extra reviewers lined up in case some reviewers bow out

-      Abstracts due December 31

-      Distribute abstracts for review by approximately January 7, provide reviewers 14 days meaning reviews are complete by approximately January 21

o  Questions for reviewers to consider

§ How do you rank this abstract?

·      Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor

§ Do you recommend this abstract be accepted?

·      Yes / No

·      “Typically the answer to this questions should be ‘Yes’ unless there is an obvious red flag raised in the abstract. If ‘No’ identify and explain the red-flag issue either in the next couple of responses or in comments to the program chair below.”

§ Does the abstract make an explicit connection between engineering and Christianity?

·      Yes / No

·      “If an abstract does not do so but has good potential in this direction, you can still recommend accepting, but please indicate one or more modifications the author(s) could make to show such a connection.”

§ Comments for the author(s)

·      “Consider making one or two comments to help the author(s) improve the paper, or to indicate a direction you’d like to see the author(s) explore.”

§ Comments for the program chair (the author(s) do not see these comments)

·      “Response required if you recommend the abstract be rejected.”

o  Reviewers should be able to provide anonymous feedback to author and also direct feedback to program chair

 

-      Authors receive feedback regarding abstract acceptance by January 31

o  Along with acceptance, provide full paper guidelines

o  A more formal format document would be helpful for uniformity… still not quite consistent in final paper format

Full Paper

-      Full paper first draft due April 30

o  14 days for paper review

o  Back and forth between chair/reviewers/authors as required

o  Full paper review

§ How do you rank this paper? (Scale of 1-5)

§ Does this paper make an explicit connection between engineering and Christianity? (Scale of 1-5)

§ Do recommend this paper be accepted?

·      Accept as is

·      Accept with minor revisions

·      Recommend major revisions prior to accepting

§ Comments for the author(s)

§ Comments for the program chair (required if major revisions are recommended)

o  Final decisions by May 31

-      Final papers due June 15?

o  We didn’t do this in 2017, but doing so would provide the opportunity of having the completed proceedings available electronically during the conference

o  Communication to authors about final papers should also include information about presentations (typically, authors simply bring their presentations on their own computers/data sticks)


 

Program

 Summer before the conference

o  Create a draft schedule, typically using the previous conference schedule as a template. Distribute the schedule to the steering committee for discussion and comment.

o  Solicit ideas (from the steering committee, colleagues, host institution, etc.) for keynote and invited speakers

o  Send out CFP (late August) to entire mailing list

Fall before the conference

o  Contact possible keynote and invited speakers, try to get them lined up

o  Start lining up abstract/paper reviewers

o  Reminder for CFP (perhaps late November) to entire mailing list

o  Solicit ideas for panel session(s)...past panels include ABET updates,...

Spring/summer before the conference

o  Reminder of conference (perhaps with tentative schedule/keynote/etc) in mid January to entire mailing list

o  Communication regarding abstract/paper reviews as required

o  Reminder of conference (shortly before early registration deadline)

o  Continue to solicit ideas for panel session(s) :-)   ...past panels include ABET updates,...

o  Line up volunteers to help during the conference – wait until after early registration closes and use registration and paper authors for solicitation list

§ Worship leader(s)

§ Paper session moderators

§ Opening banquet greeters

§ Banquet table hosts

§ Opening devotions at banquet (perhaps combined with CES and host institution)

§ Morning devotions on Thursday

§ Morning devotions on Friday

§ Closing devotions before Friday lunch (perhaps CES)

§ Any other duties related to host needs

o  Distribute instructions to volunteers

o  Make sure paper authors are registered for conference

o  Publish preliminary conference proceedings (maybe 1 week prior to the conference)

During the conference

o  Collect electronic files of presentations (request author permission to post presentations)

After the conference

o  Prepare a foreword for the final proceedings

o  Publish final conference proceedings on CES website

o  Publish presentations on CES website


Past Program Chairs

  • 2019 Randy Schwindt
  • 2017 Justin Vander Werff
  • 2015 Mike Foster
  • 2013 Jeremy Van Antwerp
  • 2011 Bill Jordan
  • 2009 Matthew Green and Jeremy Van Antwerp
  • 2008 Gayle Ermer
  • 2006 Steve VanderLeest
  • 2004 Steve VanderLeest
  • 2002 Steve VanderLeest
  • 1999 Steve VanderLeest

Comments