[dcchairs2016] UbiComp/ISWC 2016 Doctoral School notification - #117

[dcchairs2016 at ubicomp.org]

Dear Hasan Shahid Ferdous,

Please find enclosed the reviews for your submission for the Ubicomp/ISWC 2016 Doctoral School.

117: "Technology at Mealtimes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"

Despite not being able to accept your submission at this year's Ubicomp/ISWC Doctoral School, committee members provided guidance and feedback on your submitted paper. We highly encourage you to follow the valuable advices that the committee member entered in their reviews towards improving on your doctoral work.

Thank you for submitting to the UbiComp 2014 Doctoral School.


Max Mühlhäuser
Nadir Weibel
Rene Mayrhofer

UbiComp 2016 Doctoral School Chairs


------------------------ Submission 117, Review 1 ------------------------

Title: Technology at Mealtimes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly


Confidence

   2  (Somewhat confident - I have passing knowledge)

Contribution to UbiComp

   This line of work focuses on using mobile devices at the dinner table and
   specifically on the potential positive aspects such use might have. It is
   relevant to Ubicomp and tackles a timely problem.

Overall Rating

   2  (Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this paper.)

The Review

   Meta comment: The main part of this submission has been accepted in the
   main conference track as a full paper. The overlap (in the sense of
   copy&paste) is high, and as such I consider it unfitting to have this
   draft in the adjunct proceedings of Ubicomp 2016 (there is not much in
   addition to the main track paper, and a lot of duplicated content).

   Notwithstanding the issue of including this short draft in the adjunct
   proceedings, I believe that the author could benefit from participating
   in the Ubicomp DC. They are seemingly far enough in their PhD process to
   already have interesting results, and they have a good idea of the
   research questions. The hypothesis is implicitly clear (that mobile
   devices at the dinner table are all bad), but I would like to see a more
   detailed concept of how to measure success. I.e. what positive impact can
   TableTalk have, and how could that be quantified? How can the hypothesis
   be proved in the end of the thesis?


------------------------ Submission 117, Review 2 ------------------------

Title: Technology at Mealtimes: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly


Confidence

   3  (Very confident - I am knowledgeable in the area)

Contribution to UbiComp

   This research contributes to the understanding of how technology can
   support social interactions during family meals. 

Overall Rating

   3  (Maybe reject: I would agree with rejecting this paper.)

The Review

   This is a very interesting a timely line of work. I feel that the
   research outlined fits well with Ubicomp and the methodology described
   are sound and valid. The acceptance of this research on the main track of
   Ubicomp is a good sign that the doctoral thesis is on the right path, and
   the plan outlined by this student is a natural follow-up of the current
   work.

   In order to benefit from the DC, research should be at a stage where the
   student could present interesting dilemmas and seek guidance from the
   panel. I believe that there are those elements in the research outlined
   here, but the submission to the DC does not outline them. Despite the
   interesting research, the fit with Ubicomp, and the valid methodology,
   given the high overlap with the attached Ubicomp paper submission,  this
   paper just does not present the student as a compelling candidate for the
   DC. Perhaps the student is too far ahead in his/her research? 

   Additionally, while most of the submission describes what has been done
   (mostly borrowing from the main paper), the space dedicated to what is
   ahead is limited. Also, the contributions are not highlighted in a
   specific enough way in the contribution statement. The overall idea is
   clear, but what will this thesis really achieve in the larger research
   described here?

   In summary, the submission is structured in a way that does not allow to
   judge very well the needs and potential impact of a DC participation at
   this stage of the research.