Note on potential conflicts of interest
Given that Super Linguistics is a nascent field, and many scholars working in this area have had exchanges at some stage, we will follow the following guidelines for handling potential conflicts of interest.
- If co-organiser X has a conflict of interest with regards to a given submission (e.g., same research group, supervisor-supervisee relationship, etc), another co-organiser Y assigns suitable reviewers, and asks for those reviews to be sent by email; Y (or one of the AC organisers) then uploads the reviews onto Easychair.
- If both of the organisers are in a conflict of interest with a given submission, the reviewing process for this particular submission is deferred to the AC organising committee.
- A mix of specialist and non-specialist reviewers will be assigned to each abstract.
- If one of the organisers is in a conflict of interest with a given author (e.g., where the author argues against the organiser's approach), then that organiser cannot contribute to deciding the outcome of that author's abstract. In such cases, the organiser not in a conflict of interest should decide the outcome of that abstract on the basis of the reviewers' comments.
Note on the selection of presentations
Eighteen abstracts were submitted, of which one was withdrawn by the author prior to the decision making process. Out of the remaining 17 abstracts, 10 were accepted for talk or poster presentation and the remaining 7 were rejected.
All abstracts with a weighted/unweighted average rating of 1.0 or higher were accepted by virtue of their ratings; this amounted to 9 of the 10 accepted abstracts. The two abstracts with the highest average ratings below the 1.0 threshold were considered for inclusion; only one of them contained clear non-trivial data and formalisms, and was thus accepted
as the 10th abstract.
There are 3 talks and 7 posters in the workshop. To select the 3 talks out of the 10 accepted abstracts, three factors were considered:
- the weighted/unweighted average rating of the abstracts,
- topical spread across areas of super linguistics, and
- novelty of the proposal (i.e., whether it had been previously presented at other conferences).
In addition to the 3 talks, one of the posters was also selected as a talk alternate, following the same guidelines.