I was just struck by part of a review process that I participated in. I wanted to share my experience outside the review discussion track, as I think it touches on some bigger issues.
We as reviewers had done our work, and duly pointed out a number of flaws in an otherwise promising submission. The second meta-reviewer pointed out that the paper was submitted in the “demo” category (which we had no way of knowing as reviewers), and that this year category is not linked to paper length (thus, we were reviewing a “long” 6000 word demo submission) (EDIT: is that actually true? I don’t see that reflected in the call for submissions). The meta-reviewer further called our attention to the community aspect of this year’s theme, and invited us to reconsider our reviews from that perspective.
I appreciated this thoughtful response, as this is exactly one function that a good meta-review can have – to inform the paper reviewers of other angles they might have missed. Unfortunately, reviewers do not receive any kind of meta-data indicating the submission category. Is there any way that could be rectified in future NIME review processes?
Further reflecting, I realize why this meta-review stuck a chord with me: because it reminds me of my own experiences approaching the NIME community as a practicing artist long before I entered academia. At that phase, reading about some formality regarding a “Latex document” (to recall one early source of frustration) felt very exclusionary and closed. This was of course on top of the fact that any academic conference is a pay-to-play adventure for the un-institutionalized, where not only is your work as a freelancer uncompensated, but you must also cover your own costs to present it. This combination of structural barriers kept me away for a very long time.
While the economic aspects of academia are largely unsolvable at the NIME conference level, we can do something about the exclusivity of the format. I am a huge fan of the Alt category in any conference that will tolerate it, and by extension I feel like the Demo category is something that should be encouraged for non-academics as a way of opening NIME up to contributions from those who do not write for a living.
I think the place most of us got hung up with on this particular paper was the place where practicing artists were cos-playing academics. At that point, all our professional sensitivities to the formalities kicked in, and we felt a need to slice the thing to bits. Not being aware of the category and context of the paper encourages us read it like any other submission – not a bad thing at all, at least when academic rigor is important.
If other metrics deserve priority consideration, then I think the submission should be framed that way to reviewers from the start. Reviewers having access to the submission meta-data would facilitate that. If I have somehow missed this in the NIME CMT interface, please correct me.
Finally, the way the category gets framed to potential authors is also important. If non-academic practitioners feel they must cos-play as scholars to be accepted, then what you get can become problematic: sweeping generalizations, gaping blindspots in the literature review, formatting issues, incorrect citations and possibly even undisclosed ChatGPTing as the artist struggles to meet perceived standards of validation within a field for which they may not be trained.
Perhaps the Demo category should be more explicitly framed to authors like an Alt track would: as a place where the normal rules need not apply, and as a place where they don’t have to conform to the academic mold in order to participate.
