Paper and Poster RatingsHere are the ratings for the 2025 papers and posters.
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsDear Members,
attached the ratings after the meeting.
To consider:
- Some of the selected papers as poster have mentioned, that they would NOT wish to present as a poster. We will be contacting them separately.
- Some presenters might not get the final approval (legal/travel) to be onsite.
If there are abstracts that you believe should be considered, please let us know.
Thanks again for your time and effort!
Maria
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsHi there, thank you for your effort! As for the final choice, I find that 10 of 20 papers are related to DoE (first or second choice), which in my opinion is very unbalanced. On the other hand, we have only 2 papers related to automation and scripting, and 4 about data exploration and visualisation (the topics which were rated very high on the pinboard of the last conference)
What about considering some of the following papers related to those topics? (here the ones I ranked highly)
2025-EU-30MP-2188, 2025-EU-30MP-2114, 2025-EU-30MP-2224, 2025-EU-30MP-2097 (automation and scripting);
2025-EU-30MP-2129; 2025-EU-30MP-1974; 2025-EU-30MP-2205; 2025-EU-30MP-2213 (visualisation, sharing results)
I'd be glad to hear your opinions!
Best, Katharina
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsHi Katharina,
nice visualization of the results!
I understand and agree with your point of view there is some unbalace. On the other hand we have very interesting papers with equal interest weight related to the main, frequently selected topics so it will be not easy to skip and replace some.
As for the 1st and 2nd choice I definitely am in favor of the first: Predictive modeling and Machine Learning are strong actual analytic tools becoming more and more important in industrial process control, DOE analysis and AI.
Kind regards, Frank
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsInteresting points Katharina. For me data exploration and visualisation includes model visualisation and communication/sharing understanding via the profiler and other graphical summaries. Perhaps a stretch but visualisation is key and has a role at all stages of the analytic workflow and to some extent I would expect visualisation to appear in many presentations even when it is not mentioned as a 1st or 2nd choice capability as part of the abstract submission.
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsThank you Frank and Malcolm for your answers! Maybe you're right Malcolm with the point that visualisation and communication is implicitly included in most papers. But then maybe we should think about adjusting the categories for first and second choices before the next call for papers next year, in order to reduce the overlap of categories as much as possible?
And of course I agree with you Frank that all selected papers were highly ranked and it would be difficult to skip single ones. But in case somebody cannot present his/her paper, I would be very happy if we could replace it by one relating to automation/scripting (as a passionate scripter, I very much miss papers on this topic, and I think, other participants might feel similarly)
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsHi @katharina_l,
I think there are already papers in the waiting list (before considering new ones).
My paper was not selected in the first round due to my activity as Steering comitee member (even if I didn't rate my own abstract), but my paper was ranked 4th, so really hope to be included in the presenters list if any of the 20 selected papers couldn't make it (as it was first in the waiting list).
A lot of discussions have occured during the meeting on Monday and even after offline about the inclusion of new paper in the presenters list, but we should accept the global ranking instead of individual preferences, as it should provide a better representativeness of what the users might be interested in general.
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsHi Victor, I understand your interest in having your paper among the accepted presentations, and I'm convinced that this will be a good choice. But if we select papers only following the global ranking and not taking into account the topic categories, countries, organizations, skill levels etc, then these data are unnecessary and we shouldn't look at them at all. As a result we surely will have very good paper presentations, but a very unbalanced choice - which in my opinion is not the aim of JMP discovery summit. That's all I wanted to say ...
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsOf course, and I do understand and accept this methodology, as it enables to have various topics covered by different presenters.
What I want to highlight is that maybe for the same "category", there might be differences of interest and ranking between steering comitee members, so if possible, we should try to follow the global ranking, as it provides a less "biased" estimate of liking 
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsWould it not be possble to organize - besides the main paper/poster presentations - some facultative discussion/presentation moments (1-2 hours spread over the discovery workshop) where specific diciplines can be discussed/presented; there Victor can present his high rated topic and subjects related to Katarina's interest. Maybe difficult, just an idea to meet conerns above that make sense.
Re: Paper and Poster RatingsTotally in agreement with Victor
Maybe for next year, we have to decide the number of papers needed for each categories and then select the best ranking papers.
Guillaume
Re: Paper and Poster Ratings 28 posters are needed
-15 submitted posters (if we exclude poster 2025-EU-PO-2018 due to very low score)
-10 posters, which were submitted as paper and selected as paper in our meeting.
= 3 posters to be defined
We have 4 papers in category “others” like Victor. Let’s take them all as poster. Furthermore, not everybody of our selection will come to the discovery.
