Home
JJAW Home

Workshop Discussion Procedure

(Prepared by Cynthia Beath and Eldon Li)

Role Play: Focal Author, Readers (non-focal Authors), Chairperson (also a Mentor), Mentor(s)

Note for both authors and mentors:

Notes for mentors:
  1. Each table has a Chairperson and a co-mentor; the mentor whose name is listed first could serve as the Chairperson who moderates the proceedings of discussion.
  2. Since the Chairperson needs to moderate the discussion, he/she should prepare less number of detailed review reports than the co-mentor; e.g., when a table has 5 papers, the Chairperson should prepare 2 review reports, while the co-mentor prepares 3; please coordinate between each other.
  3. When preparing a detailed review report in EasyChair system, please consider it as if you are the reviewer for a journal.
Procedure:
  1. Start the workshop by taking one minute to introduce each other.
  2. Start the discussion by taking one minute to read the abstract of the focal paper so as to remind everyone which paper is going to be discussed.
  3. Ask the focal Author to pose one pressing question to the table �V usually it's something like "I've been told that I need to do X �V should I?" or "Should I focus the journal article on X or Y?" and occasionally "How can I improve my English writing?" or "Do you think this paper will be accepted at Journal X?"
  4. The Chairperson would say "What do you think?" by going around the table (Authors first, then Mentors) and giving each person (hereafter called "Reader") a chance to answer the question. (Note: The nice thing about this is that it shows that people's answers on even the most mundane straightforward questions differ. That is an important lesson. When it's the Mentor's turn, one of them can point that out. Ideally the two Mentors will disagree at least once during the day! The correct answer is often subtle, context dependent, and a matter of taste. This happens between two journal reviewers too.)
  5. In a similar round robin fashion (Authors first, then Mentors), each Reader says what they thought the strength or main contribution of the paper is. The focal Author is invited to agree/disagree until we get a fix on what the Author WANTS the main contribution to be for the journal article.
  6. Using the same round robin approach, and given that we all accept the Author's desire that the main contribution of the paper should be X, each Reader says what they think the main weakness of the paper is �V in the context of the desired contribution �V and, if possible, how that weakness might be fixed. Often the other Readers will focus on weaknesses that are not weaknesses given the "true" objective of the paper, which is an important lesson. It helps Readers to reprioritize weaknesses given a shift in goals.
  7. If there is still plenty of time (e.g., if some Authors don't show up), the focal Author can pose another question to the table.
  8. Chairperson wrap up the time allotted to this paper with words of wisdom �V for me it's usually general things like be aware of genre, find a writing buddy or Mentor, work backwards from the contribution to craft a paper, connect the bones of the paper, distinguish between projects and papers, get lots of feedback and use it intelligently, be aware that opinions will differ and that ultimately you must choose.
  9. Both Mentors and Readers take 8 minutes to give the focal Author their written comments and repeat the above process for the next focal paper.