1 / 9

Response to International Review

Response to International Review. BCS HCI Group. What is the group?. ~250 academics and practitioners Runs largest national conference on HCI Lancaster 3-7 September: 21st conference Runs HCI Educator’s workshop annually

mstarr
Download Presentation

Response to International Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Response to International Review BCS HCI Group

  2. What is the group? • ~250 academics and practitioners • Runs largest national conference on HCI • Lancaster 3-7 September: 21st conference • Runs HCI Educator’s workshop annually • Runs usabilitynews.com news and information service; Interfaces magazine; Interacting with Computers journal; group website • Event organisation and support • Representations to media, government, professional organisations, research councils • Aim to support and promote HCI in all forms

  3. Group Response • From interested parties, mailing list, executive committee • Draft circulated, comments taken, woven into document, submitted to EPSRC • Only HCI issues commented on • Main elements • Interdisciplinarity • Review process • Career development • International collaboration • Design of review

  4. Interdisciplinarity • Makes it harder to achieve grant funding • Especially more adventurous ones • Choice of referees could be improved • Review form needs revision • Scoring boxes should relate more directly to commentary • Make it easier for referees to review sections of proposal only, if some areas are outside their expertise

  5. Review process • Not enough feedback to reviewers • About their own reviews • About the reviews of others on the same grant • Hence no improvement in standard or consistency of reviews • Would like to see referees seeing other referees comments, and the panel’s view on these

  6. Career development • Primarily a community issue • Therefore our responsibility to address it • EPSRC can assist by encouraging PhD studentships within grant proposals

  7. International collaboration • Should be further supported • Must be driven by research need • EPSRC can assist by developing strategic partnerships with research agencies abroad

  8. Design of review • Did not engage as effectively as it could with the borad community • Rushed week for the panel • Reviewed a fraction of EPSRC’s portfolio • Focused on successful institutions • Responses could have been better collated before visit, more open meetings held, wider variety of institutions represented

  9. Ongoing actions • The group volunteered to engage with EPSRC on • Redesign of refereeing form • Discussing improvements to the overall refereeing process for both applicant and referees • Should address career development • Continue to raise profile of HCI

More Related