next »

[qrypt]

My question in a nutshell: how hard should I push back against some colleagues that are proposing to behave unfairly to the detriment of other colleagues.

I am responsible for organizing a significant portion of a very large conference later this year.  The work mainly involves coordinating a number of session organizers.  The three organizers for one particular session neglected to mention (when proposing their session) that they intended to put their own papers into the session, leaving very little space for acceptance of other abstracts.  If the organizers had told the board they wanted to have a mostly closed session, we would have indicated this in the call for papers; as it happened, there was no indication this was anything but a regular session open to the usual degree of competition. 

The session organizers then (very strangely) neglected to submit their own abstracts by the deadline.  They want me to come up with a way to add their papers to the session.  To do this, I would in effect be displacing papers that were submitted in good faith by the deadline -- and so I have declined (after consulting with a couple of other board members), making the points in the previous paragraph.  But the session organizers are now asserting that three of the five submitted abstracts are "insufficiently related to the session theme"; quite conveniently, this would leave space for their three papers.  This assertion is implausible for at least two of the papers they want to reject -- it is entirely self-serving. 

The obviously right thing to do is to stand my ground; they missed the deadline, and there's no reason I should be unfair to those who submitted in good faith by the deadline.  To stick to this line, however, I will have to "second-guess" their own judgment about the session they are responsible for organizing.  It doesn't help that a couple of them are reasonably prominent in this particular research area.  In doing the right thing, I risk making some enemies, in a way that could easily come back to bite me. 

I'm hoping to end up with a different frame for all of this somehow, a way to square the circle.  Any suggestions greatly appreciated.

[erzuliefreda]

Since these prominent folks have drawn such an array of great proposals, could the one session become a double session, with a coffee break in the middle?

[qrypt]

Since these prominent folks have drawn such an array of great proposals, could the one session become a double session, with a coffee break in the middle?

We have a limited number of session slots.  If we get a couple of extra slots, they will go to sessions that received several times the number of abstracts submitted to the session I'm writing about here.  The large number of submissions also means that I can't solve this by shifting papers to other sessions. 

[proftowanda]

I think that this calls for special treatment of such prominent colleagues -- in a preconference session.

[anon99]

The three organizers for one particular session neglected to mention (when proposing their session) that they intended to put their own papers into the session, leaving very little space for acceptance of other abstracts.  If the organizers had told the board they wanted to have a mostly closed session, we would have indicated this in the call for papers; as it happened, there was no indication this was anything but a regular session open to the usual degree of competition. 

....But the session organizers are now asserting that three of the five submitted abstracts are "insufficiently related to the session theme"; quite conveniently, this would leave space for their three papers.  This assertion is implausible for at least two of the papers they want to reject -- it is entirely self-serving. 

Are these three big names?  If so, see if there is room for a preconference session as a previous poster mentioned, if not for the three of them to propose (read expect) to present at THREE of the five slots for a session is a joke.  If they are known for being a pain in the ass, then either ask other people to chair that session or tell them 'no'.  I personally think it is unreasonable to expect session organizers to take up 60% of the slots for their session, but that is my opinion.  Having said that, I have never seen it done at conferences I have been to.

[larryc]

I think that this calls for special treatment of such prominent colleagues -- in a preconference session.

Yep--create some new special slot for these jackasses to bray. You will have to contact the hotel and find a room.

[msparticularity]

Maybe, since there are only three papers, you could advertise this as a special pre-conference mentoring session with added discussion for grad students and new professionals, too! That would also allow you to inflate the egos of these idiots a bit more by explaining how the next generation of young researchers really need to the opportunity to learn from them.

[proftowanda]

I think that this calls for special treatment of such prominent colleagues -- in a preconference session.

Yep--create some new special slot for these jackasses to bray. You will have to contact the hotel and find a room.

Or if the conference site is near the OP's campus, hold it there to keep the price down, make it free for students and campus colleagues, etc.  (Or if not near your campus, OP, is there another one nearby?)  Promote it as a golden opportunity for Prominent Colleagues to shine, share their wisdom, kick off the event, not have their session compete with others, etc. 

(Yes, I have been involved in similar situations and learned again and again to turn problems into opportunities.)

[hiddendragon]

Yep--create some new special slot for these jackasses to bray. You will have to contact the hotel and find a room.

LOL!  I agree with this.  I'm in the process of trying to create a forum for a big egomaniac to "bray" as well.  She felt slighted by me years ago when she tried to recruit me under her wings and I refused because I already had too many "crazy" mentors--didn't need anymore.  She has been trying to discredit me ever since, including in manuscript reviews for several journals.  I'm strategizing how to get myself out of this sh*t, and was thinking that I need to invite her as a special guest to my campus soon.  Lesson learned:  try your best not to tread on the big egos.  They'll be targeting you for life.  Believe me, these people have nothing better to do then zero in on you.

[oldfullprof]

Good on you, Grypt!  Stand your ground.

[qrypt]

Update:

I did stand my ground, and when it became clear to them that they weren't going to get what they wanted they stopped responding to my (ever so cordial) messages.  Since they were in essence "AWOL", I removed them as session organizers and sorted out the session myself.

It then emerged that at an earlier stage they had caused a number of abstracts to "disappear" from the system.  It's not hard to speculate as to the reason: more scope for them to occupy the session.  So I'm pretty pleased that I followed my instincts (and of course all the good advice I received here).

I didn't explore the option of a pre-conference special session for them.  They're not *that* prominent. 

I've kept my board informed, and they're happy.  Of course I've no doubt made some enemies -- but it's worth it, I don't feel dirty. 

Thanks for all your thoughts/suggestions.