Editor for this issue: <>
This is a reply to Munn's posting in volume 4-337. >Two recent conference announcements (NELS and BU Conference >on Language Acquisition) have limited abstract submissions >two one per author, *including joint authors*. This is a >break with what seems to be quite a tradition in the field, >including the LSA Annual Meeting, and previous meetings of >NELS and the BU Conference, which allowed one joint abstract >in addition to one single paper. >I was wondering if the conference organisers would care to >post brief statements about why they chose to change their >policy. Were the policy changes discussed at the business >meetings of the conferences? This is the policy that we adopted for NELS 24. It was not discussed at the business meeting last year and does not necessarily represent a permanent change in policy at NELS. Our decision to restrict submissions to one abstract per person is based on the desire to offer as many people as possible the opportunity to present at NELS 24 without having to resort to parallel sessions. The issue of whether to have parallel sessions has been discusssed at past business meetings of NELS, including the one at NELS 23 in Ottawa last October. To our knowledge, in all cases it has been strongly opposed. The number of abstracts submitted to NELS in the past few years has been growing. Last year 227 abstracts were received (vying for 37 slots) and we expect a high number this year, even with the restriction. We believe that limiting submission to one abstract per person will not reduce the caliber of the conference, but it will make our job a little easier since it will reduce the submission rate to some extent. Comments are welcome. The NELS Organizing CommitteeMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
i too am opposed to the restriction to a single submission. i can see the sense in restricting submissions to one single-author and one (or two) joint papers for administrative reasons (after all, somebody has to read and grade all these abstracts!), but even this restriction seems undesirable. further restrictions seem to me to be unjustifiable on practical grounds, and positively unhelpful to potential authors. if the conferences at issue are not selective in their acceptance of papers, accepting all submissions regardless of quality or relevance, then they should set an attendance limit on a first-come basis. if the abstracts are subject to review, then it is up to the organisers to take the best papers regardless of who wrote them. i really don't see a problem here. of course, there is the problem of the conferences where the number of registration fees is more important than the quality of submissions ...! on the whole, i feel that there are quite enough workshop-style conferences to cater for less-polished work or for those who wish to meet distant colleagues: i fully appreciate that some of us (including me) can't get funding for conferences unless we are presenting our work, but there are plenty of open conferences which cater for such people. on the other hand, there are far too many "major" conferences where one can hear the same old papers rehashed, meet the same 200+ people, and pay another few hundred pounds to a gleeful conference-organising company. in my area alone, there are annual ACL and EACL conferences, bi-annual CoLing, ICASSP, ICSLP and Eurospeech conferences, plus all the main-stream AI and linguistics ones, and so it goes on! maybe it's time the conference situation was rationalised. alex.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue