Greetings/Introductions


Download 515 b.
Sana23.05.2017
Hajmi515 b.



Greetings/Introductions



Jeff Laube

  • Jeff Laube

  • Dave McGrath

  • Mark Melanson **

  • Betty Guillie *

  • Peggy Hayes

  • Tom McLaughlin T

  • Rob Bruckner T

  • Tom Butash T



Greetings/Introductions

  • Greetings/Introductions

  • TAC Newsletter Status - Peter Hartwich/Rob Vermeland

  • Status SciTech Exercise - Megan Scheidt

  • Peer Reviewed Conference Papers– Tom McLaughlin

  • New Actions for NIS – Teleconferencing Discussion

  • Old/New Business

  • Wrap-up/Adjournment



Message from Our VP, TAC [Riley] (Budget??)

  • Message from Our VP, TAC [Riley] (Budget??)

  • Message from Our Director, Programs & Products [Scheidt] (Forum update?)

  • Betty’s Corner

  • TAC Member – Nancy Andersen

  • Spotlight on Region III – Rob Bruckner

  • Article on Proposed Governance Changes (if available)

  • Article on Peer Review Technical Papers – Tom McLaughlin

  • Possible teaser article on CASE/System Engineering –Sophia (Nancy? Mark?)

  • Foundation Update - Merrie Scott

  • Three Month Look Ahead – Rob V.

  • All Inputs due in by Friday, September 11



Greetings/Introductions

  • Greetings/Introductions

  • TAC Newsletter Status - Peter Hartwich/Rob Vermeland

  • Status SciTech Exercise - Megan Scheidt

  • Peer Reviewed Conference Papers– Tom McLaughlin

  • New Actions for NIS – Teleconferencing Discussion

  • Old/New Business

  • Wrap-up/Adjournment



All high-impact items have been assigned to staff Managing Director(s) to address or implement

  • All high-impact items have been assigned to staff Managing Director(s) to address or implement

  • Follow-up with workshop participants

    • Communicate status through
      • September TAC newsletter
      • Direct email to participants from Dave Riley?






Greetings/Introductions

  • Greetings/Introductions

  • TAC Newsletter Status - Peter Hartwich/Rob Vermeland

  • Status SciTech Exercise - Megan Scheidt

  • Peer Reviewed Conference Papers– Tom McLaughlin

  • New Actions for NIS – Teleconferencing Discussion

  • Old/New Business

  • Wrap-up/Adjournment





Motivated by 2014 SciTech Best Paper author Joe Majdalani (Auburn University). Would implementing peer review draw more members of academia to AIAA conferences and institute involvement?

  • Motivated by 2014 SciTech Best Paper author Joe Majdalani (Auburn University). Would implementing peer review draw more members of academia to AIAA conferences and institute involvement?

  • Investigators: Tom McLaughlin, David McGrath, Majdalani; chartered by TAC to investigate at 2014 Space Conference

  • Question: Beyond anecdotes, do members of academia support such a change?

  • Survey sent to academic department heads group in Spring

  • Surveys received in late June: Only 4 respondents



“Archival service for AIAA is not the critical issue”

  • “Archival service for AIAA is not the critical issue”

  • “AIAA Journal papers should remain archival but not the conference papers. “

  • “at XXX University for engineering only refereed journal articles are really counted”

  • Late result from Majdalani: “Based on my interactions with the Web of Science (WoS) IT, I was informed by the last individual (and I hope that he was right) that they are willing to incorporate our conference proceedings as part of their WoS collection provided that we pass our proceedings data on to them as we do with our journals.”



“Journals count more than conference papers except those conference papers from extremely competitive conferences such as the Combustion Institute.  Also, papers in leading journals count more than papers in second or third tier journals.  The journals from AIAA are generally respected despite the low impact factor of those journals.”

  • “Journals count more than conference papers except those conference papers from extremely competitive conferences such as the Combustion Institute.  Also, papers in leading journals count more than papers in second or third tier journals.  The journals from AIAA are generally respected despite the low impact factor of those journals.”



“Yes. Significantly”

  • “Yes. Significantly”

  • “No it would not, it would destroy the current system.”

  • “Peer review and subsequent revision — probably yes.  Better than reviewed only by abstract, not as good as a journal paper, which would typically be reviewed by experts sought out for their specific expertise.”

  • “The tenure dossier does differentiate between “conference papers” and “refereed conference papers”.   In the final decision on tenure and promotion, only journal articles really count.”



“Moving good papers from conference to journal has been tried in the past. Very hard to do unless the author is strongly interested.”

  • “Moving good papers from conference to journal has been tried in the past. Very hard to do unless the author is strongly interested.”

  • “Funny. This use to be the system decades ago 70’s and 80’s)   I think it is a good system to go back to.”

  • “Yes, papers that appear in journals have the most value in tenure and promotion decisions.”

  • “Having the session organizer/chair suggest those conference papers he/she deems worthy for journal publication is a good idea. “



“anything that brings notoriety to a paper helps in tenure promotion. ”

  • “anything that brings notoriety to a paper helps in tenure promotion. ”

  • “Not likely.   What is good is best paper awards, often organized by TCs often without financial award but the recognition counts in promotion”

  • “Probably not, unless they win some kind of award. ”

  • “Best paper awards are valued in promotion and tenure decisions.”



“Finding a way have conference papers reviewed, rather than simply abstract reviews would help faculty a lot”

  • “Finding a way have conference papers reviewed, rather than simply abstract reviews would help faculty a lot”

  • “I am strongly against trying to make conference papers archival.  ”

  • “Seems like the VP Publications and the journal editors should be involved in this discussion, perhaps in advance of going out with a survey.  ”



Lack of response indicate this isn’t a big deal to department heads

  • Lack of response indicate this isn’t a big deal to department heads

  • Received responses indicate a variety of opinions, no consensus

  • Most important outcome: Why don’t we fast track good papers for journals like we used to?

  • Likely not worth the upheaval and increased workload to peer review conference papers.



Greetings/Introductions

  • Greetings/Introductions

  • TAC Newsletter Status - Peter Hartwich/Rob Vermeland

  • Status SciTech Exercise - Megan Scheidt

  • Peer Reviewed Conference Papers– Tom McLaughlin

  • New Actions for NIS – Teleconferencing Discussion

  • Old/New Business

  • Wrap-up/Adjournment



How do we affordably equip our meetings with the telecommunications capability appropriate for each meeting’s goals? 

  • How do we affordably equip our meetings with the telecommunications capability appropriate for each meeting’s goals? 

  • Everywhere in industry, teleconferencing is encouraged. 

    • TC’s are moving out on their own without TAC guidance
    • Virtual attendance at Forum meetings, webcams, audio, etc. 
  • Possible NIS task to conduct a study of meeting connectivity requirements,

    • Review TC best practices and hardware/software configurations,
    • Recommend an affordable tiered standard for TAC meetings. 


Greetings/Introductions

  • Greetings/Introductions

  • TAC Newsletter Status - Peter Hartwich/Rob Vermeland

  • Status SciTech Exercise - Megan Scheidt

  • Peer Reviewed Conference Papers– Tom McLaughlin

  • New Actions for NIS – Teleconferencing Discussion

  • Old/New Business

  • Wrap-up/Adjournment



Any new actions or thoughts?

  • Any new actions or thoughts?

    • Are there areas that we don’t represent well (airlines? System engineering?, etc) that we should possibly grow into?
    • Cyber security? It was hot for awhile.. What is going on? Should there be focus on this again?
    • Engaging Gov’t/Industry directly to get themes and directions for forums and sessions to improve quality of papers
    • Is there an app for teleconferencing? Should we develop one to daisy-chain into a local meeting.


Greetings/Introductions

  • Greetings/Introductions

  • TAC Newsletter Status - Peter Hartwich/Rob Vermeland

  • Status SciTech Exercise - Megan Scheidt

  • Peer Reviewed Conference Papers– Tom McLaughlin

  • New Actions for NIS – Teleconferencing Discussion

  • Old/New Business

  • Wrap-up/Adjournment



Next in-person meeting will be at SciTech 2016

  • Next in-person meeting will be at SciTech 2016

  • Next telecon

    • October 14, 2015
  • Adjournment






Download 515 b.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2020
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling