[Coral-List] Reflections on ICRS 11

[Richard Dunne]

Dear Coral Listers

On many of these points I would concur with Phil Dustan from the 
sessions I attended. I would add, or emphasise that:

1. At least one talk I attended was a literature review and presented no 
new information/ideas.
2. Two talks contained analysis/data that has already been shown to be 
flawed and had been rejected (in one case by two separate journals).
3.  For at least two talks the authors had decided to change their title 
and content and announced this at the start of the talk.
4.  Quite a number of the talks were simply presentations of a paper 
that had recently been accepted or published.

I leave Listers to draw their own conclusions as to whether any of these 
are appropriate.

I concur that ICRS is an opportunity to present NEW information, or NEW 
ideas, or perhaps also present a different slant on existing research 
which cannot normally be done within the confines of a journal 
publication where the use of visual aids is ideally suited.

Let us hope that the session organisers  weed out inappropriate papers 
from the published proceedings.
 

Richard P Dunne

West Briscoe, Baldersdale, Barnard Castle, Co Durham, DL12 9UP. UK
Tel +44 1833 650059



Phil Dustan wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I’m sure you’ll all join in thanking all the people that worked so hard 
> to make the ICRS 11 a success.  It was a wonderful opportunity to meet, 
> hear, discuss, and share ideas with new and old colleagues alike; well 
> worth the expense and time of traveling to Fort Lauderdale.  I think we 
> can all agree that the meeting was HUGE and it took superhuman efforts 
> to make it work as smoothly as it did.  Congrats to Dick Dodge and the ICRS.
>
> That said, I’d like to offer the following observations and thoughts in 
> an effort to improve ICRS 12:
>
> 1. Too many of the talks I attended went over their allotted time, 
> leaving no time for discussion.
>
> 2. Too many of the talks I attended were full of information that had 
> already been published.  An extreme example of this was a very senior 
> researcher who must have shown at least 30 slides, each with a bold 
> citation across the bottom.  His talk also ran over by a wide margin. 
> Who gave him the license to waste my time?
>
> 3.  Too many presentation slides offered far too much information to absorb.
>
> 4. Too many presentations had not bothered to check the pre-internet era 
> literature, or even basic reference texts such as the Treatise on 
> Invertebrate Paleontology.  The older literature is still full of good 
> science.
>
> 5. It has always been my idea that meetings are occasions to share new 
> information, not overwhelm the audience, impress the funding agencies, 
> badger us with old facts, reinvented wheels, or pronounce your own 
> revision of history.  Save this kind of stuff for gossip during breaks, 
> dinner, or drinks.
>
>
> As we begin planning for the next symposium, now less than 4 years away, 
> perhaps the next organizing committee could consider some changes such as:
>
> Perhaps each talk could be limited to no more than 10 slides with 7 
> minutes for presentation time and 8-10 minutes for questions.
>
> Additionally, and I think extremely important, presentations should show 
> only new, unpublished research, not stuff that’s already in the literature.
>
>
>