Very good tips not only for participants but also for conference oragnizers.
Of course, this is true of basically everybody in academia. That’s the nature of the beast, as it were– getting a Ph.D. requires you to become the World’s Leading Expert in a subject that nobody else cares about to anywhere near that extent. Getting a faculty position demands that you pursue research interests that don’t quite line up with anyone else’s (while not being too far away from the consensus of what’s interesting enough to be funded and published). We’re all unique and special here, which means none of us are actually that special, so we might as well offer whatever we have.
Source: Going To An Academic Conference? Here Are Some Tips
A recent pilot project by the National Science Foundation (NSF) aimed at easing the strain on its vaunted merit review system featured an unusual twist: Grant applicants were required to review seven proposals from peers competing for the same pot of money. The approach created a captive—and highly motivated—pool of reviewers for program managers within NSF’s Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation Division, saving them time. And using mail reviews rather than panels also saved NSF money. The quality of the reviews also seemed to be comparable to what is generated with NSF’s traditional approach to peer review. NSF officials are weighing whether to expand the pilot to other programs.
za pomocą A radical change in peer review.