We've received some very promising responses from the ACH review phase! I have added the file with the reviews to our
GDrive folder. We have until the 28th of January to address the feedback through a rebuttal. Reviews 2 and 3 are the ones with specific suggestions. Let me know your thoughts and how you want to proceed (here's the
ACH Google Doc in case we want to centralize our response notes).
Andie
=====================
Dr. Andie Silva (she/her/hers | they/them/theirs)
Assistant Professor
York College, CUNY
Department of English rm. AC-2A09
P: 718-262-2486
________________________________________
From: ACH 2019 Conference Organizers [
[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 10:13 AM
To: Andrea Silva
Subject: Rebuttal period now open for ACH 2019!
Dear Andie Silva,
We are writing to let you know that the rebuttal period for ACH 2019 has
begun. You can now access reviews for your proposal in ConfTool
(http://conftool.org/ACH2019). Rebuttals are due by January 28th.
The rebuttal period is your opportunity to address concerns raised by
reviewers of your proposals. This is a chance to clarify, explain how you will
address the reviewers’ concerns, or to otherwise respond to the feedback you
have received. The ACH 2019 Program Committee will take your responses into
account when making final decisions about the program.
When reading your reviews, please remember that the ACH 2019 reviewer pool is
drawn from colleagues from multiple disciplines, professional roles, and
countries. This is a great joy because a variety of feedback can significantly
enrich our work. But it can also be challenging because you may encounter
different styles of reviewing than ones with which you are most familiar.
Focusing on trends and consistency among the reviews will help you respond.
If you have any questions or concerns about the reviews or the process, or if
you are a graduate student or new to digital humanities conferences and need
advice about responding, please contact Program Committee Co-chair Roopika
Risam (
[log in to unmask]).
As you respond, please keep in mind the evaluation criteria:
Quality of Content - the proposal is clear about its questions and modes of
inquiry in addition to background, outcomes, data, and/or insights.
Originality - the proposal presents new scholarly or creative work, pushes
existing work in new directions, presents new ideas or content, or promotes
consideration of existing ideas in other ways.
Significance- the proposal raises important issues and/or demonstrates broader
applicability of its content beyond an individual project.
Inclusivity - the proposal involves topics and participants identified as
priorities in the CFP:
“We particularly invite proposals on anti-racist, queer, postcolonial and
decolonial, indigenous, Black studies, cultural and critical ethnic studies,
and intersectional feminist interventions in digital studies. As an
organization committed to cross-disciplinary engagement, we welcome
interdisciplinary proposals.
We also are especially interested in receiving proposals from participants
with a range of expertise and from a variety of roles, including alt-ac
positions, employment outside of higher education, and graduate students. We
further invite proposals from participants who are newcomers to digital
humanities.”
Presentation - the proposed presentation will engage the audience and is clear
about takeaways for the audience.
We look forward to receiving your rebuttals by January 28th. Please don't
hesitate to reach out to Roopika (
[log in to unmask]) with any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Roopika Risam, ACH 2019 PC Co-chair
--
ACH 2019 Conference
http://ach2019.ach.org/
Submit at: https://www.conftool.org/ach2019/
