ASSIGNMENT OF ABSTRACTS TO REVIEWERS
Abstracts are individually assigned to
reviewers by the BUCLD faculty advisors, with the help of an automated
computer program, on the basis of information indicated by authors and
reviewers. The submitting author of each abstract selects codes for the
content area of the abstract, the types of learners represented, and the
languages studied. Each reviewer similarly indicates his/her expertise in
content areas, types of learners, and languages. Also taken into account are
the following criteria:
- Ensure that the reviewer is sufficiently
familiar with the content of the abstract.
- Ensure that the reviewer is not unfriendly to
the theoretical perspective of the abstract.
- Don't assign abstracts to reviewers who are
colleagues, students, advisors, close friends, or enemies of the authors
(insofar as we know this).
- Each reviewer gets between 7 and 20 abstracts.
REVIEWERS FOR BUCLD 34
Nameera Akhtar
Shanley Allen
Richard Aslin
Jessica Barlow
Lilia Bartolome
Edith Bavin
Misha Becker
Heike Behrens
David Birdsong
Gerard Bol
Patrick Bolger
Melissa Bowerman
Ellen Broselow
Doreen Bryant
Nancy Budwig
Ann Bunger
Helen Cairns
Catherine Caldwell-Harris
Kyle Chambers
Harald Clahsen
Jeffry Coady
Molly Collins
Peter Coopmans
Stephen Crain
Suzanne Curtin
Barbara Davis
Cecile De Cat
Kamil Deen
Laurent Dekydtspotter
Daniel Dinnsen
Heiner Drenhaus
Kenneth Drozd
Catherine Echols
Inge-Marie Eigsti
Richard Ely
Anne Fernald
M. Joao Freitas
Karen Froud
Alison Gabriele
Patricia Ganea
Anna Gavarro
Dedre Gentner
Lisa Gershkoff-Stowe
Judith A. Gierut
Heather Goad
Adele Goldberg
Roberta Golinkoff
Helen Goodluck
Peter Gordon |
Janet Grijzenhout
Janet Grijzenhout
John Grinstead
Andrea Gualmini
Maria Guasti
Ayse Gurel
Paul Hagstrom
Cornelia Hamann
Arild Hestvik
Makiko Hirakawa
Barbara Hoehle
Bart Hollebrandse
Aafke Hulk
Felicia Hurewitz
Nina Hyams
David Ingram
Tania Ionin
Elizabeth Johnson
Alan Juffs
Rene Kager
Dorit Kaufman
Nina Kazanina
Evan Kidd
Wolfgang Klein
Grzegorz Krajewski
Tanja Kupisch
Usha Lakshmanan
Laura Lakusta
Barbara Landau
Donna Lardiere
Thomas Lee
Nonie Lesaux
Claartje Levelt
Beth Levin
Juana Liceras
Elena Lieven
Conxita Lleo
Barbara Lust
Theo Marinis
Danielle Matthews
Rachel Mayberry
Jessica Maye
Corrine McCarthy
Luisa Meroni
Toben Mintz
Maria Mody
Silvina Montrul
James Morgan
Alan Munn
|
Julien Musolino
Aparna Nadig
Letitia Naigles
Chandan Narayan
Thierry Nazzi
Rochelle Newman
Elissa Newport
Tamara Nicol Medina
Cathy O'Connor
Janna Oetting
William O'Grady
Mitsuhiko Ota
Seyda Ozcaliskan
Anna Papafragou
Johanne Paradis
Joe Pater
Lisa Pearl
Sharon Peperkamp
Ana Perez-Leroux
William Philip
Colin Phillips
Julian Pine
Bernadette Plunkett
Philippe Prevost
Rachel Pulverman
Clifton Pye
Marnie Reed
Mabel Rice
Tom Roeper
Jason Rothman
Caroline Rowland
Phaedra Royle
Jenny Saffran
Tetsuya Sano
Lynn Santelmann
Teresa Satterfield
Cristina Schmitt
Carson Schutze
Bonnie D. Schwartz
Nuria Sebastian-Galles
Amanda Seidl
Ann Senghas
Joan Sereno
Ludovica Serratrice
Valerie Shafer
Rushen Shi
Anna Shusterman
Leher Singh
Barbora Skarabela
|
Roumyana Slabakova
Jesse Snedeker
William Snyder
Hyun Joo Song
Antonella Sorace
Rex Sprouse
Jeffrey Steele
Daniel Swingley
Kristen Syrett
Kriszta Szendroi
Helen Tager-Flusberg
Anne-Miche Tessier
Erik Thiessen
Margaret Thomas
Rosalind Thornton
Ruth Tincoff
Liliana Tolchinsky
John Trueswell
Ianthi Maria Tsimpli
Sigal Uziel-karl
Elena Valenzuela
Virginia Valian
Daniel Valois
Angeliek van Hout
Spyridoula Varlokosta
Joshua Viau
Marilyn Vihman
Daniel Weiss
Jurgen Weissenborn
Janet Werker
Lydia White
Elizabeth Wonnacott
Fei Xu
Charles Yang
Chen Yu
Tania Zamuner
Andrea Zukowski
Kie Zuraw
|
2. Reviewers rate
each abstract independently on a scale of 1-10 (double-blind procedure), and
optionally submit comments for the authors.
RATING GUIDELINES
Reviewers are asked to use the following
criteria, as appropriate, for the abstracts they evaluate. Note that not all
criteria will apply equally well to each abstract.
-
Is the question or issue clearly stated?
-
Is the significance of the work clearly stated?
Is relevant previous work appropriately cited?
-
If relevant, are the method, data collection,
and analysis procedures well-designed and appropriate to the question
addressed?
-
Is the conceptual framework coherent? If
relevant, is the theoretical analysis well-argued?
-
Is the work original? Does it present new data
(if relevant), particularly from less-studied languages?
-
Is the work completed, or does it show very
strong promise of being completed in time for the conference?
-
Are the conclusions justified in relation to
the data and/or analyses?
-
Is the abstract written clearly and organized
well?
-
Is the topic of scientific, methodological or
theoretical importance?
-
Is the paper timely in terms of current issues
of interest in the field of language development?
-
Is the paper likely to be of interest to a
reasonable number of attendees at BUCLD?
3. We calculate
two scores for each abstract:
a. Mean raw score b. Mean z score
RAW SCORE
| Definition: |
Score out of 10 from a reviewer. |
| Assumption: |
Every reviewer's use of a
particular score category is equivalent. |
| Problem: |
May be misleading if a reviewer is
particularly lenient or stringent in their ratings.
|
Z SCORE
| Definition: |
Standard score indicating how far, and
in what direction, a given raw score deviates from the mean of all the raw scores assigned by a given
reviewer. |
| Assumption: |
Every reviewer's use of a
particular score category may NOT be equivalent. Some reviewers may be more demanding or lenient than others, or
may use a restricted range. |
| Problem: |
It may be misleading if a reviewer
receives a set of unusually excellent or unusually terrible papers. (The z
score effectively forces the ratings from a given reviewer to fit a bell
curve.)
|
4. We rank each
abstract by raw score and z score, and calculate a composite rank.
SAMPLE ABSTRACT RANKING DATABASE
5. We select 81
abstracts to be presented as papers, 12 as alternates, and 72 as posters.
PAPER SELECTION PROCESS
From the set of abstracts designated as
"paper only" or "either paper or poster":
-
We select the top 55 abstracts from the raw
score list, and the top 55 abstracts from the z score list. This totals
70-75 abstracts (there is a lot of overlap between the two sets).
-
We create a pool of the next 40 abstracts based
on composite rank.
-
We select up to 11 abstracts from the pool to
complete the program of 81 papers, based as much as possible on
composite rank, with the goal of forming coherent sessions.
ALTERNATE SELECTION PROCESS
From the set of abstracts designated as
"paper only" or "either paper or poster":
We select 12 alternate abstracts from the
remaining abstracts in the pool, based as much as possible on composite rank,
with the goal of getting a good distribution of content areas.
POSTER SELECTION PROCESS
From the set of abstracts designated as
"poster only" or "either paper or poster":
-
We eliminate all abstracts already selected as
papers.
-
We select the top 72 remaining abstracts based
on composite rank.
6. Acceptance rates
for recent BUCLDs
|
Abstracts Submitted
|
Abstracts Accepted*
|
Acceptance Rate
|
2001
|
298
|
90
(90 papers, 0 posters) |
30%
|
2002
|
277
|
90
(90 papers, 0 posters) |
33%
|
2003
|
314
|
133
(87 papers, 46 posters) |
42%
|
2004
|
386
|
133
(87 papers, 46 posters) |
34%
|
2005
|
390
|
133
(87 papers, 46 posters) |
34%
|
2006 |
526 |
153 (87 papers, 66 posters) |
29% |
2007
|
466
|
153
(87 papers, 66 posters) |
33%
|
2008 |
479 |
153 (87 papers, 66 posters) |
32% |
2009 |
519 |
153 (81 papers, 72 posters) |
29% |
*Does not
include the 12 alternate papers. BUCLD began having posters in 2003.
