🚀 go-pugleaf

Having returned from the convention planning meeting, I am quite concerned
about the future of scholarly pursuits in AECT (I am not alone and received
considerable email recently on this topic).

First is the decision to limit any one author to two listings in the
program. This is not first author, but as any paper author. As you may
know, AERA limits one to two first authorships and a total of five
appearances in the program. With AECT's current rule, they (excutive board)
are limiting the dissemination of many sholarly pieces.

One soultion was to remove the author's name from additional papers. This
solution is both unethical and fails to reward faculty members for their
contribution.

From what I understand, we (conventional planning group) had some sessions
that were not filled, so the limit did not open sessions for lesser quality
papers or more presenters.

Second, is the lack of blind review (have you every tried to mark out the
author's names in the papers?). How can we be credible if we do not require
blind reviews of our proposals?

As a result of these two issues, I must ask if AECT is meeting the needs of
the scholar by providing a rigorous environment for reviewing proposals and
a forum for disseminating knowledge. 

-- 
Gary R. Morrison
Instructional Design & Technology
University of Memphis