Reviewing submissions for a conference is not an easy task, even in a "normal" year. You sign up when your schedule seems fairly manageable-it seems like a great idea at the time, doesn't it?-but the actual work inevitably shows up in your inbox at precisely the worst, busiest time. You feel yourself pulled between needing to get reviews DONE and off your desk, and the responsibility of providing substantive and useful feedback to your colleagues. Perhaps you curse your months-ago self for having agreed to do such a thing, especially during a (still ongoing) global pandemic when all we want to do is get away from our screens.
We recognize this struggle and sacrifice and understand why so many reviewers (at so many associations, not just ICA) often settle for submitting numerical ratings and leave off the qualitative commentary, just to cross the task off their lists. That qualitative commentary, though, is crucial to the improvement not only of papers that ultimately are rejected, but also to those who are accepted, so that they may come to conference months later with the best, revised version of their work.
Beginning in 2017, in an effort to put an emphasis on the importance of qualitative reviewing for our conference in San Diego, ICA instituted a process whereby each division and interest group may nominate one "rock star" reviewer: someone who may have taken on a high number of last-minute qualitative reviews when others failed to fulfill their obligations, and/or who has provided especially helpful, detailed, or astute commentary to submitters to help them truly improve their work. One Rock Star Reviewer is nominated by the planner from each division, and then all 33 "rock stars'' are entered into a randomized drawing, from which three are chosen to receive a complimentary conference registration. (For more information on the ethos behind this, please see our Reviewer Guidelines).
This year's overall rock star reviewer WINNERS for ICA24, chosen at random from all nominees to receive the complimentary main conference registration, are:
Md Waseq Ur Rahman (U of Oregon), who was nominated by Ruud Jacobs, this year's Game Studies Division planner, who wrote:
He was chosen because he wrote critical, insightful, and expansive reviews on each of the submissions we had sent him. Importantly, he wrote these comprehensive reviews even though he is in the final stretches of obtaining his PhD.
Mr. Rahman will receive complimentary main conference registration for the 74th Annual ICA Conference in Australia. Thank you, Mr. Rahman, for going above and beyond for your division, and best of luck as you complete your PhD!
Joe Hatfield (U of Arkansas), who was nominated by Sharif Mowlabocus, the LGBTQ Studies IG planner, who wrote:
Firstly, he undertook more reviews for our Interest Group than anyone else outside of the [IG's] Executive Committee. Our average reviewer is assigned two reviews. Joe took on five and completed them all on time. Secondly, and this is really important to our IG, Joe offered constructive, compassionate and genuinely meaningful feedback. He was concise but comprehensive, and his reviews demonstrate that he not only read the full abstract (we require extended abstracts in our IG) but that he had taken the time to understand each one and to evaluate their weaknesses and strengths fairly. He by no means 'accepted' all the submissions he was invited to review but in every case, he offered feedback that ensured candidates know their work has been given serious consideration.
Dr. Hatfield will receive complimentary main conference registration for the 74th Annual ICA Conference in Australia. Thank you, Dr. Hatfield, for going above and beyond for your division!
And finally, Piotr Szpunar (SUNY Albany), who was nominated by Dr. César Jiménez-Martínez, the Popular Media and Communication Division planner, who wrote:
Although Piotr did not submit any papers to PMC this year, he spontaneously wrote to me that he would like to review for us (he doesn't know me or anything -it was pure generosity). In the last couple of weeks, when several reviewers went on silent mode, Piotr stepped up and helped us with various papers and extended abstracts. His reviews were thoughtful and of good quality. Piotr's help was crucial for the PMC Division in the last couple of weeks.
Dr. Szpunar will receive complimentary main conference registration for the 74th Annual ICA Conference in Australia. Thank you Dr. Szpunar, for going above and beyond for your division!
Although they don't all receive free registration (sorry), we also extend our gratitude to all thirty of the other top reviewers submitted by each* division/interest group, as follows (in alpha order by Division/Interest Group name):
None submitted (Activism, Communication, & Social Justice); Marie-Louise Mares (Children, Adolescents and the Media); Tom Dixon (Communication and Technology); None submitted (Communication History); Rohan Grover (Communication Law and Policy); Benjamin Muzakari (Communication Science and Biology); Josephine Lutko(Computational Methods); Sri Saahitya Uppalapati (Environmental Communication); None submitted (Ethnicity & Race in Communication); None submitted (Feminist Scholarship); Md. Waseq Ur Rahman (Game Studies); Lea C, Hellmuller (Global Communication and Social Change); Kaisa Lindholm (Human-Machine Communication); None submitted (Health Communication); Carolyn Sartain Kalny (Information Systems); None submitted (Instructional & Developmental Communication); Mal Green (Intercultural Communication); None submitted (Intergroup Communication); Sari Rajamaki (Interpersonal Communication); None submitted (Journalism Studies); None submitted (Language & Social Interaction); Joe Hatfield (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Studies); Jisoo Kim (Mass Communication); Bohyeong Kim (Media Industry Studies); Dabjani Chakraborty (Mobile Communication Studies); None submitted (Organizational Communication); None submitted (Philosophy, Theory and Critique); David Silva (Political Communication); Piotr Szpunar (Popular Media and Culture); N/A (Public Diplomacy); Michael Kent (Public Relations); None submitted (Sport Communication); Salma Bouchafra (Visual Communication Studies).
*not all divisions and interest groups submit a name every year by the deadline
Thank you to ALL of you who review each year –although we at headquarters are grateful for your service, it is your fellow scholars that you are truly helping with your time and effort. It is so important that you have provided your colleagues with feedback that is constructive, substantive, actionable, and kind. If you haven't reviewed before, please consider reviewing next year for the #ICA25 conference in Denver, Colorado (USA). The success and quality of every ICA conference-and of individual submitters' work, and indeed of the field as a whole-depend on rigorous review and guidance from colleagues and mentors. (For more information on how to sign up to be a reviewer, please view this helpful video tutorial from Katie Wolfe, Manager of Conference Services. It was created for ICA23, but the process for this is the same every year).
We look forward to seeing you all–whether physically in Australia or online–in June! Until then, be well and stay safe.
Laura