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 a minimum of 10 abstracts,
most get between 15 and 20.
140+ REVIEWERS FOR BUCLD 2007
Adam Albright
Shanley Allen
Jennifer Arnold
Sergey Avrutin
Jessica Barlow
Lilia Bartolome
Edith Bavin
Misha Becker
Heike Behrens
Gerard Bol
Melissa Bowerman
Holly Branigan
Ellen Broselow
Doreen Bryant
Nancy Budwig
Ann Bunger
Catherine Caldwell-Harris
Carlo Cecchetto
Aoju Chen
Youngon Choi
Harald Clahsen
Molly Collins
Peter Coopmans
Julie Coppola
Stephen Crain
Suzanne Curtin
Ewa Dabrowska
Barbara Davis
Cecile De Cat
Jan de Jong
Jill de Villiers
Helene Deacon
Kamil Deen
Laurent Dekydtspotter
Holger Diessel
Daniel Dinnsen
Heiner Drenhaus
Kenneth Drozd
Nigel Duffield
Catharine Echols
Richard Ely
Paola Escudero
Julia Evans
Anne Fernald
Paula Fikkert
Cynthia Fisher
M. Joao Freitas
Anna Gavarro
Carlo Geraci
LouAnn Gerken |
Judith A. Gierut
Heather Goad
Adele Goldberg
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Helen Goodluck
Peter Gordon
Janet Grijzenhout
John Grinstead
Andrea Gualmini
Maria Guasti
Ayse Gurel
Paul Hagstrom
Justin Halberda
Cornelia Hamann
Heidi Harley
Roger Hawkins
Arild Hestvik
Makiko Hirakawa
Kathy Hirsh-Pasek
Barbara Hoehle
Erika Hoff
Robert Hoffmeister
Bart Hollebrandse
Aafke Hulk
Felicia Hurewitz
Nina Hyams
David Ingram
Tania Ionin
Harriet Jisa
Elizabeth Johnson
Alan Juffs
Rene Kager
Dorit Kaufman
Nina Kazanina
Evan Kidd
Melanie Kuhn
Marie Labelle
Laura Lakusta
Donna Lardiere
Thomas Lee
Nonie Lesaux
Y.K. IngriLeung
Sam Leung
Claartje Levelt
Beth Levin
Jeffrey Lidz
Jackie Liederman
Elena Lieven
Sarah Liszka
|
Conxita Lleo
Cristobal Lozano
Theo Marinis
Stefka Marinova-Todd
Lori Markson
Chloe Marshall
Rachel Mayberry
Jessica Maye
Corrine McCarthy
Richard Meier
Jurgen Meisel
Sarah Michaels
Maria Mody
Silvina Montrul
Jim Morgan
Gary Morgan
Alan Munn
Julien Musolino
Chandan Narayan
Carol Neidle
Rochelle Newman
Elissa Newport
Ira Noveck
Cathy O'Connor
Janna Oetting
William O'Grady
Barbara Pan
Anna Papafragou
Johanne Paradis
Joe Pater
Barbara Pearson
Ana Perez-Leroux
Alexandra Perovic
William Philip
Colin Phillips
Pilar Prieto
Bernadette Plunkett
Linda Polka
Rachel Pulverman
Clifton Pye
Jennie E. Pyers
Marnie Reed
Mabel Rice
Tom Roeper
Monika Rothweiler
Caroline Rowland
Esther Ruigendijk
Jenny Saffran
Tetsuya Sano
|
Teresa Satterfield
Jeannette Schaeffer
Cristina Schmitt
Petra Schulz
Bonnie D. Schwartz
Nuria Sebastian-Galles
Julie Sedivy
Amanda Seidl
Ann Senghas
Ludovica Serratrice
Rushen Shi
Yasuhiro Shirai
Leher Singh
Barbora Skarabela
Roumyana Slabakova
Jesse Snedeker
William Snyder
Hyun-joo Song
Antonella Sorace
Rex Sprouse
Jeffrey Steele
Daniel Swingley
Kriszta Szendroi
Helen Tager-Flusberg
Anne-Miche Tessier
Margaret Thomas
Mike Tomasello
Rosemarie Tracy
John Trueswell
Ianthi MarTsimpli
Sharon Unsworth
Sigal Uziel-karl
Elena Valenzuela
Virginia Valian
Heather van der Lely
Angeliek van Hout
Spyridoula Varlokosta
Laura Wagner
Jurgen Weissenborn
Lydia White
Wolfgang Klein
Fei Xu
Charles Yang
Hanako Yoshida
Martha Young-Scholten
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: |
May be misleMay 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.)
ading if a reviewer is
particularly lenient or stringent in their ratings.
|
4. We rank each
abstract by raw score and z score, and calculate a composite rank.
SAMPLE ABSTRACT RANKING DATABASE
5. We select 87
abstracts to be presented as papers, 12 as alternates, and 66 as posters.
PAPER SELECTION PROCESS
From the set of abstracts designated as
"paper only" or "either paper or poster":
-
We select the top 60 abstracts from the raw
score list, and the top 60 abstracts from the z score list. This totals
75-80 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 10-15 abstracts from the pool to
complete the program of 87 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 46 remaining abstracts based
on composite rank.
6. Acceptance rates
for recent BUCLDs
|
Abstracts Submitted
|
Abstracts Accepted
|
Acceptance Rate
|
2001
|
298
|
90
|
30%
|
2002
|
277
|
90
|
33%
|
2003
|
314
|
133
|
42%
|
2004
|
386
|
133
|
34%
|
2005
|
390
|
133
|
34%
|
2006 |
526 |
153 |
29% |
2007
|
466
|
153
|
33%
|
NOTE: "Abstracts Accepted"
includes only papers and posters accepted for presentation. It does not
include the 12 alternate papers. BUCLD began having posters in 2003.
