The document discusses expectations and responsibilities for academics at different career stages, from postdoc to full professor. It notes that the typical workload expectations are 40-50% research, 30-40% teaching, and 10-30% service. Service responsibilities increase over time and include organizing scientific conferences. Organizing a conference requires gaining experience with established conferences, building a team, making strategic decisions around formats and policies, and learning from mistakes. Conflicts of interest policies aim to ensure fair and unbiased review processes.

1. Service in Academia
(what will they expect from you once you
move beyond postdoc)
Alexander Serebrenik

2. PhD
Postdoc
Assistant
Prof
Associate
Prof
Full Prof

4. Theory (Eindhoven): 50% research, 40% teaching, 10% service
Practice (me): 40% research, 30% teaching, 30% service
Beware: ~60 working hours per week are not an exception

5. Why?

7. https://amyjoberman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/stand-out-be-memorable.jpg

8. http://tkographix.com/the-benefits-of-helping-others/

10. Organising scientific
conferences

11. Organising scientific
conferences
software engineering research

12. broad focussed
inde
pend
ent
inde
pend
ent
inde
pend
ent
inde
pend
ent
inde
pend
ent
E
T
A
P
S
O
O
P
S
L
A
I
C
S
E
I
C
S
M
E
I
C
S
E

13. Ambachten en bedrijven: geschenk voor de jeugd geschenk voor de jeugd. Anonymous (ca. 1870-1880)
1. Get experience
with established
conferences

14. 2. Build
a team

15. 3. Take strategic
decisions

16. 4. The core

17. 5. Learn from my
mistakes

18. Ambachten en bedrijven: geschenk voor de jeugd geschenk voor de jeugd. Anonymous (ca. 1870-1880)
1. Get experience
with established
conferences

19. PC co-
chairs
track
chairs
financial
chair
proceedings
chair
web chairsocial
media chair
publicity
chair
general
chair
local chair

20. web chair
PC deadlines, notifications send,
program, keynote speakers,
preprints
track
loca
social events, rooms, local and
travel information
social
media
chair
publi call for papers

21. publicity
chair
PC
call for papers,
call for participation
track

22. proceedings
chair
Conference
Publishing
Consulting
(CPC)

24. Checklist
• Jane Doe vs. Jane A. Doe
• Page limits
• Official style files
• Quality of the figures
• Orphans and widows
• Scalable fonts, font embedding,…
• and more!
https://www.conference-publishing.com/Help.php

25. 2. Build
a team

26. Doctoral Symposium ICSME 2016
Photo by Justin Smith

27. Coffee break at SANER 2015

28. Round-table (?) discussion at SEmotion 2017

31. industry academia
women men
senior junior
Geography
Topics of expertise
https://www.sigsoft.org/policies/pgmcommittee.html

33. Useless
Solution: talk to people
Nota bene!

35. 3. Take strategic
decisions

36. Charles Bartlett. Hollandse vrouwen in de regen (1908). Groeningemuseum, Brugge
3.1 Independent or
collocated?

37. finance legal
proceedings
social
events
venue
Onbekend. 1/2 20ste eeuw. Volkskundemuseum. Antwerpen.

39. 3.2 Zero, single,
double or triple
blind?
Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Blind Leading the Blind (1568) Museo di Capodimonte, Naples,
Italy

41. Open,
accountable
0
Not officially used on a large scale, individual reviewers
sometimes sign their reviews.
1
Till very recently most conferences were single-blind, many
conferences still are
2
Recent trend, e.g., ICSME 2017 and ICSE 2018 are double
blind.
Fair 3 Recent experiments, e.g., ICPC 2017 was triple blind.

50. 4. The core

51. 1. the person themselves;
2. a past or current student or academic advisor;
3. a supervisor or employee in the same line of authority within the past three years;
4. a member of the same organization (e.g., company, university, government
agency, etc.) within the past three years;
5. a co-author of a paper appearing in publication within the past three years;
6. someone with whom there has been a financial relationship (e.g., grants,
contracts, consultancies, equity investments, stock options, etc.) within the past
three years;
7. someone with whom acceptance or rejection would further the personal goals of
the reviewer (e.g., a competitor);
8. a member of the same family or anyone considered a close personal friend; or
9. someone about whom, for whatever reason, their work cannot be evaluated
objectively.
ACM SIGSOFT Conflicts of Interest

52. ACM SIGSOFT Conflicts of Interest
person Alexander Serebrenik
academic advisor Danny De Schreye
students
W. Torres, T. Muske, J. Mengerink, B. Vasilescu, Y. Luo,
Y. Dajsuren, F. Ebert, M. Gupta, B. Lin, R. Jongeling, D.
Gachechiladze, C. Gerpheide, J. Businge…
supervisor/
employee/
organisation
everybody from Eindhoven Univ of Technology/CWI/
UMons, D. Spinellis (IEEE Sw), P. Avgeriou, D.
Shepherd (JSS), D. Falessi (IEEE CS Integrity)
co-author in 3 years
B. Adams, G. Robles, D. Landman, J. Vinju, F. Lanubile,
N. Novielli, D. Lo, S. Wang, A. Zagalsky, M.-A. Storey, H.
Altinger, M.-T. Valente, A. Hora, F. Castor, G. Pinto, P.T.
Devanbu, V. Filkov, B. Ray, T. Mens, J.M. González-
Barahona, A. Capiluppi, Y.-G. Guéhéneuc…
financial relation A. Zaidman, F. Palomba, …

53. Consequence
Students of the PC chair(s) cannot submit!

54. ACM SIGSOFT policy on authorship
Anyone listed as Author on an ACM paper must meet all the following criteria:
• they have made substantial intellectual contributions to some components of the
original work described in the paper; and
• they have participated in drafting and/or revision of the paper; and
• they are aware that the paper has been submitted for publication; and
• they agree to be held accountable for any issues relating to correctness or integrity of
the work.
Other contributors may be acknowledged at the end of the paper, before the bibliography,
with explicitly described roles, preferably using the roles found in the CASRAI Contributor
Roles Taxonomy at http://casrai.org/CRediT
https://www.acm.org/publications/policy-on-authorship

55. Alice asked Bob to help her to improve the English in
her paper. Should Bob be considered as a co-author
on Alice’s paper?
John is a young postdoc in Mary’s lab, paid on the
project acquired by Mary. Should Mary be
considered as a co-author on John’s paper?
Pat is a scientific programmer that builds software for
Chris’s research. Pat is not involved in designing or
executing the study beyond developing software. Should
Pat be considered as a co-author on Chris’s paper?

56. 5. Learn from my
mistakes

57. RRR
Rapid Response Reviewers

58. If you are a PC chair and enter CoI in
EasyChair for paper X all your mails will
“forget” about this paper!