An algorithm for automatic assignment of reviewers to papers

Applying ergonomics and human factors to congress organization in uncertain times

Organizational Design and Management (ODAM) elements of Ergonomics and Human Factors (E/HF) apply to congress organization. Exemplary delegate and organizer E/HF experience is constrained by shifting requirements, time pressures and financial constraints. E/HF application while organizing the International Ergonomics Association's Triennial Congress in 2021 (IEA2021) is described focusing on delivery platforms considering typical and exceptional (pandemic) constraints, emphasizing ODAM E/HF principles and generalizable lessons. Post-Congress feedback from delegates, session chairs and Congress organizers reveal the Congress as experienced. Presenting virtually allowed on-demand recording access following live sessions and increased question-and-answer flexibility. Frustrations included navigating multiple platforms and insufficient communications. Stakeholders' differing expectations increased organizer workloads and delegate frustration. Maximum virtual presentation benefits require efforts to ensure integrated, human-centered platform development. Simply digitizing traditional Congress sessions ignores potential enhancements. Embracing innovations would help meet delegate communication needs via careful selection and deployment of evolving virtual meeting technologies. Organizational learning strategies can support these efforts.

Letter to the Editor: publish, publish … cursed!

This paper comments on the phenomenon of “publish or perish” associated with the current information explosion and its awful consequence: the curse that hangs over academia which dooms it to publish incessantly irrelevant and pointless documents. The overabundance of publications is not justified and is not even necessary in many contexts for personal promotion, and even less for the advancement of science. Therefore, the current role of scientific journals is highly questionable that its aim could be misleading. Huge numbers of articles are published, but they are not read because the aim is principally “publish for publish,” or publication for its own sake. The standard corrective tool for improving scientific communication—peer review—cannot function adequately, and biases and perversions are introduced which undermine society’s confidence in the scientific enterprise. A dark landscape unfurls itself across the world of scientific information, forcing us to question and improve its current state. Methodologically this paper goes halfway between the essay and the review trying to provoke engaged and useful controversy.