Who Reads Conference Papers?
Introduction
An observation and suggestion for change by Herb Rotfeld
: : : Posting
Who Reads Conference Papers?
an observation and suggestion for change
by Herbert Jack Rotfeld
It is not a negative statement on authors to say that almost no one reads the actual papers besides editors, reviewers and session chairs. The simple fact is that no one can read most papers because they aren’t readily available.
Once upon a time, in an earlier period of my academic life, everyone at a conference could see the papers listed in the program. Authors were required to bring copies to sessions. The American Academy of Advertising, Association for Consumer Research, American Council on Consumer Interests and ÂÜÀòÉç¹ÙÍø had copyrighted conference books that printed all of the papers, while some other associations devoted special issues of their journals to the conferences.
As time went by, many universities reduced or stopped counting conference books as "publications" for purposes of promotion and tenure or annual reviews. So to encourage quality submissions, academic organizations started to allow authors to publish short abstracts in the conference compilations. This permitted authors to meet the copyright restrictions of both conferences and journals, using the same paper as a presentation with only a published abstract followed by submission as a potential journal article. However, this also meant that a formal paper would be accepted for presentation and no one would actually see it. In varying degrees, presentations were based on the papers, but so much would be left out. The abstract in the conference book reduces the paper and 20 minute talk to a couple of paragraphs or, in extreme cases, to a few sentences with references "available on request." Those attending a session would ask to be sent a copy of the paper, though the most common reply has become that "the paper is being revised for submission to a journal and is [therefore] unavailable."
Today, less than one in five papers appear in the conference books. The rest are only abstracts, so the only people who actually read most papers are conference session chairs, the editors of the review process for the submissions and the reviewers. Visuals are seen at the meetings, and maybe trotted out for several other conferences’ dog-and-pony shows. Presenters’ slides invariably mention a number of references, saying things such as "(Preston 1994)," but seldom is seen a presentation that provides the full citations of these notes to allow audience members to look them up, unless it is one of the increasingly rare papers in the conference book.
And even when copies of papers are handed out or the books include a complete manuscript, no one actually presents a full paper in all its detail. Aside from the boredom factor of reading out loud, there isn’t enough time. For many, an accepted paper is merely a ticket to travel funds, with talks that are somehow based on, or related to, the paper. Even when an author has the most honorable of intentions, the presentation itself is an ephemeral event.
The needed solution is to bring submissions, presentations and conference books in line with each other.
Step 1: Submissions would be scripts and visuals of a proposed 15-20 minute talk, not a research paper written in the style of a journal article. This submission would also include all slides of PowerPoint displays or proposed videos, plus a complete citation of all references mentioned in the script or listed in slides. Since submissions today are all via web systems, this can be readily done. {Added note: The scripts is not a binding item to be read, but it is a lot closer to actual presentation content than a paper. It states what will be spoken, what will be presented, in fewer words and with the actual slides. This could also force presenters to know in advance how much they can say in the time allotted and reduce problems of people running grossly over time limits}
Step 2: Referees would review scripts and visuals. Comments on accepted papers would give guidance for revising the talk, and authors would have a more directed idea of what they can say in the time allotted. Knowledge of how many words can be spoken per minute – I think the word for what few authors do is "rehearsals" – would force authors to assess in advance what can be included and what must be put aside. An unintended consequence of having reviewers assess the actual presentation is that they will have less verbiage to wade through. {Added note: As stated above, this is not a binding statement of what will be read, but having a script causes a focus on the talk.}
Step 3: The conference books, which are now online or on CD for many organizations, will at the very least include the presenters’ full scripts as revised, full citations for all references mentioned during the talk. The visuals can either be charts or figures inserted into the proper points of the published script or in appended PowerPoint slides or videos in electronic publications. For anyone whose school does "count" conference books as publications, the content would look the same as a full article, and authors could even choose to include responses to questions from the meeting if the books are from groups that publish afterward. ? Most important of this last step is that it is limited enough for authors to not violate copyright requirements for eventual journal publication while making the conference books a full repository of what was presented. The references mentioned would all be available, not available on request. Conference attendees, plus other organization members who obtain the books, would own a record of the meeting. {Added note: It is possible for the conference organizers to require presenters to bring to the meeting printed lists of all references mentioned in the talk, but experience indicates compliance with handout requirements would be low.}
Herbert Jack Rotfeld
Professor of Marketing, Auburn University
Editor, Journal of Consumer Affairs
President-elect, American Academy of Advertising
rotfeld@auburn.edu