Komen – paper kena reject

Alhamdullilah, org sedih bila paper kena reject. Tapi aku rasa semangat pula tetiba.Sebab komen2 yg diberi mengenai kerja aku amat memberangsangkan. Yg paling lemah ialah bahasa English aku. Hai napalah teruk sangat bahasa aku ni. Cam mana nak improvekan? Well kat sini aku nak letak komen mereka.

	from		Danyel Fisher <danyelf@microsoft.com>		hide details	00:30 (15 hours ago)
	to			k.azrina@gmail.com <k.azrina@gmail.com>
	date			29 Nov 2007 00:30
	subject			PIM 2008 workshop paper notification
	mailed-by			microsoft.com

Dear Azrina Kamaruddin ,

Thank you for your submission titled “Understanding Personal Information Management Process: Content Analysis To Grounded Theory” to the Personal Information Management (PIM 2008) workshop at CHI 2008. Because we received many more high quality submissions than space allows, we regret that we are unable to include your paper in the workshop. If you have any questions, please send email to chairs@pim2008.org.

We would like to invite you to participate in a PIM community network event that will take place in conjunction with the workshop, most likely on the evening of Saturday 5 April 2008. Details of the event will be sent out at a later date.

Sincerely,

Danyel Fisher

PIM 2008 PC

Review 1:

This full paper describes an interesting exploratory study looking at the ways people have to “dump” digital information, i.e., information that is not yet well understood or that isn’t easily categorized into established folders. The paper also makes mention of interesting notions such as information triggers and information life cycle. The paper is not acceptable in its current form because it is difficult to follow. The paper contains many outright mistakes in grammar. Sentence wording, even when grammatical, is often very difficult to parse. These problems are serious enough that the paper’s message is seriously obscured. Also, references are improperly formatted. Moving beyond problems of sentence structure and grammar, the paper does not make its central points clear. How is grounded theory (featured prominently in the paper’s title) actually used? Notions of life cycle are interesting but what was actually learned in the study? How are information triggers actually applied? It would seem that the study might have many interesting things to tell us but the paper fails to do this.

Review 2

Summary of Paper: This paper presents results of a study that investigated the information filing behaviors of 20 Ph.D. students with a focus on how participants dealt with “unclassified” information.

Contribution and Benefit: I believe there are valuable contributions that can come out of this study. However, as it is written, the results section of the paper is mainly in the form of quotations from participants and summaries of their comments. The results appear to be more anecdotal rather than trends from the data. Qualitative results from this type of study can provide important insights and trends for further examination. However, doing solid qualitative analysis and presenting the results can be very challenging. In this paper, the authors need do more work synthesizing and presenting the results. The study topic is interesting and highly relevant to the PIM research community. I encourage the authors to do more work to synthesize the results and submit the paper to another venue. In order to make the results more solid, the authors may need to conduct additional analysis on the data already collected.

Validity: The structure of the interviews is not described in the paper, so it is difficult to assess the validity of the study. If a semi-structured interview was used, a list of the questions should be included in the paper. Were all the interviews done by the same facilitator? How were the participants prompted? What tasks were they asked to do? The authors state that they used content analysis, grounded theory, and discourse analysis. However, they need to describe in more detail how these were applied in the study and in the analysis. There are several places in the paper where the prior work is slightly mischaracterized. The first is in the description of Malone’s finding on filing and piling. If I recall correctly, piles were found to have some organization (i.e. temporal). The second point is in the description, “as confirmed by Barreau and Nardi’s studies”. Barreau and Nardi’s studies pre-date those of Whittaker and Hirshberg, so I would say that W&H’s results confirm B&N’s rather than the opposite (as stated in the paper).

Originality: Other studies have interviewed users about their filing and piling behaviors. However, this paper address an aspect of PIM that could needs more exploration – the use of temporary, or unclassified storage locations. This is a good area for research, but as stated earlier, the authors need revise the presentation of their results, and may need to do additional analysis.

Clarity: The paper contains numerous grammar errors and places where the writing is not clear. In some places I was able to infer the meaning, however in other places I could not.

Additional Comments for the author: This paper appears to be a good start on a good research topic. More work is needed to synthesize the results and connect them to prior work. Parts of the paper are clear and well written, but other parts are confusing and need more explanation.

Research ku…..so far…..what have I got

Ni entry ttg apa yg aku dah buat selama ini.Takut nanti terlupa bila dah start write-up….oh bilakah akan berlaku?Here are some of the paper yg sudah write.

Classify kpd 3 category:

1) Internal write-up: Classified when I need to present to HUMAN’s group or yearly review report presentation.

• Presented at HUMAN’s seminar 7-3-2005
• First year report presented – viva
• Second year report presented – viva

2)External write-up: Few papers which successfully presented either locally or outside UK.

• Kamaruddin, A., and Dix, A., (2005) Searching in public versus re-finding in private: are they the same?, ACM International Conference Proceedings Series; Vol. 122, Proceedings of the 19th conference of the computer-human interaction special interest group(CHISIG) OF Australia on Computer-human interaction: citizens online:considerations for today and the future, Canberra, Australia. Session Consortium. [link to the papaer will be uploaded]
• Kamaruddin, A., and Dix, A., Understanding Physicality on Desktop: Preliminary Results, First International Workshop for Physicality, 6-7 Febuary 2006, Lancaster
• Kamaruddin, A., and Dix, A., How do you make your folder?, International Conference 2006, Salford University, 21-22 June 2006, Salford.
• Kamaruddin, A., Dix, A., and Martin, D., Why Do You Make A Folder?, BCS HCI, ENGAGE-Queen Mary, University of London, 11-15 September 2006
• Evaluating the Significance of the Desktop Area in Everyday
  Computer Use”) has been accepted for publication and presentation at
  ACHI’08 + Workshops.3) Rejected write-up: Papers being rejected

• To Dump or Not To Dump : ???????????- Nordichi Norway 2006