As far as our next annual conference (to be held 22-26 May 2014, in Seattle, Washington) is concerned, preparations are well underway: By the beginning of September, I had already received more than 20 proposals for preconferences, most of which have now been approved. We look forward to sharing more information about these sessions over the coming weeks as their organizers finalize details.
Quite a few of you, I am sure, have also by now received an invitation (or even multiple invitations) to review papers or panel proposals submitted to your Division or Interest Group. I know that for many of us this is a sensitive issue: The more active we are in the association, and the more productive we are in our field in general, the more we are asked to review. Of course, it is not only ICA that makes these demands on our time and energy; we receive similar requests from other associations, from journals, and from our departments as they seek our help during tenure reviews, program evaluations, and the like. Nearly every one of my colleagues has expressed their frustration and concern over the increasing number of reviewing tasks that confront us each year.
I have noticed, however, an interesting trend in how they handle these various demands. My personal experience-which, I recognize, may not be representative-has led me to conclude that, in North America, it is often the junior faculty members who are especially active in reviewing for conferences like ours, while senior faculty tend to devote their time to other reviewing obligations. In Europe, it seems to be the other way around: Junior faculty are often a bit hesitant to review for ICA, instead leaving this very important task to their more experienced senior colleagues. Both habits, of course, cause problems by leaving too much work to be done by too few.
It seems that there are only two solutions to this problem, the first option being to abolish the entire review process! But how would we then prioritize and decide between different submissions, distinguishing the better from the worse? The more realistic (and basically the only available) solution, then, is to distribute the load of submissions to be reviewed over more shoulders. However, this can only be done if all members commit themselves to taking on their share of the work, as well as asking and encouraging their students, peers, and professors to join in. This also implies an obligation, particularly for senior faculty, to guide and teach students or other colleagues who may have less experience, showing them how reviewing is done and being available to answer questions and offer support.
In addition, I believe ICA can and should provide similar guidance and support. I am therefore thinking of putting together a panel in Seattle where experienced reviewers could share with newcomers their expertise on what sorts of reviewing strategies work for them, which mistakes can be avoided, and where interested parties can find examples demonstrating best practices for reviewing. If you feel that you would like to contribute to such a panel, either with your experience or with your questions, please contact me at pvatica@gmail.com and I will see what we can put together.
Regardless of whether you'll be a first-time reviewer this year or are a seasoned veteran, I want to thank you for playing an essential part in the success of our association and our community. However you choose to contribute, I hope you will agree with me that the reviewing process is crucial to the success of ICA. If you are feeling particularly generous, I'll offer one additional suggestion: Please consider participating as a reviewer for our theme sessions, especially if you have expertise in new media, social interaction, well-being, or related subjects. You can contact our theme chair, Helen Wang, at hwatica@gmail.com if you think this might be of interest to you.
Finally, I have invited six colleagues from around the globe to serve on ICA's nomination committee, which will select two candidates for the next election of president-elect select in the first few months of next year. The committee will be chaired by Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick (The Ohio State U, USA), and it will also include Jonathan Cohen (U of Haifa, Israel), Sonia Virginia Moreira (U do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), Jack Linchuan Qiu (The Chinese U of Hong Kong, China), Patricia Riley (U of Southern California, USA), and Hartmut Wessler (U of Mannheim, Germany).
See you next year in Seattle!
