IPAC’13 Debrief - JACoW IPAC’13 was in Shanghai, China, 12-17 May 2013 Evelyn and Anthony will speak to the editorial room/team and IT setup portions of the program I’ll address a couple things I was involved with (even as a delegate) JACoW Stakeholders Meeting (16 May) Student Poster Session / Prizes Other Observations

IPAC’13 Student Poster Session Afternoon Sun 12 May (near registration) 115 student posters each judged by two judges I was in charge of organization of judges, student poster entries, logistics Worked with Chuanxiang Tang and Rudiger Schmidt Organization and process is fairly well-established I also teamed with Mats Lindroos and Mark Boland for final poster judging to determine winners Judging teams were pairs volunteers from SPC/OC An important part of the scientific program Organization of student grants, student posters, poster awards (usually two), and student volunteers within oral sessions is an important LOC function

(Student Poster Session IPAC’13) Spreadsheet will be displayed on a screen in the judging room The judges will see the top 10 posters and can make comments or vetos. Todd Satogata, Chuanxiang Tang, and Rüdiger Schmidt IPAC 2013

IPAC’13 JACoW Stakeholders Meeting Annual open JACoW meeting for all interested in JACoW Identified stakeholders from individual labs are invited About 60 attendees, ~10-15 from North America, and ~10-15 JACoW board of directors/team members Presentations: Ivan Andrian (vice-chair): Board of Director activities Volker Schaa (chair): Chairman’s Report Open Floor New JACoW website, documentation Effort towards citations indexing of JACoW proceedings Next JACoW Team Meeting: Berkeley Nov/Dec 2013 (Rotation then Asia late 2014, Europe late 2015)

IPAC’13 Other Observations Quick turnaround of preliminary proceedings Produced online by Friday of conference Includes only processed papers, not talks Delegate internet access was a mess Often slow to the point of nonexistent Even with conference staff “improvising” hot spots Probably should account for twice as many connections as attending delegates in internet service contracting Editorial staff on separate internal network Paper/talk server relocated to editorial room before conference

IPAC’13 Other Observations Conference guide comments Not much advertising No author index: do we want one in IPAC’15? Extra cost but used by delegates to find colleagues at posters Posters and vendors Split among two (fairly separated) floors, traffic problems Many vendors were not very happy with traffic Full booths provided (see photo on next page) Occasional AV microphone problems Hard to hear speakers who turn their heads Perhaps have lavalier and handheld microphones available

IPAC’13 Vendor Booth/Poster Space

IPAC’13 Coffee Break

(Following are IPAC’13 Student Poster Slides)

Student Poster Session IPAC’13 Organization and Schedule 13:30: We meet to form judging teams (pairs), have a quick reminder of judging rubric (this talk), distribute prepared judging sheets, and head downstairs to evaluate the student posters. Students will be placing posters from 13:30-14:00 so judges can arrive a bit early. 14:00: Start judges visits to posters. Judges should spend 10-12 minutes per poster in discussion with the student on their work. Return sheets to judging room via runner as they are filled so we can enter them in the judging spreadsheet. 16:00: Reconvene in 5G for refreshments, final score delivery to spreadsheet, and to discuss best scores from judging spreadsheet. Our objective is to come to consensus on the best 10 posters to move to the final round of judging. Rankings and spreadsheet will be displayed for all to see. Todd Satogata, Chuanxiang Tang, and Rüdiger Schmidt IPAC 2013

Student Poster Session IPAC’13 Organization and Schedule 16:20: Form final judging team (3 judges) and distribute new judging sheets with original points to those judges. These judges should be hopefully some colleagues which are latecomers and did not make the first round. Please contact Todd and Chuanxiang for volunteering for the second round.  16:30: The three judges will visit 10 finalists together and add comments (and points if preferred) on the sheet. They then make their final ranking, taking into account points and other impressions from the students. 18:00: The three judges explain their ranking to attending other judges for a final discussion. They might get still some additional information by other judges. But we will leave the final decision on the three, not on the whole team (only in case of non-agreement we will make a simple vote by the committee). 19:00: End of session and notification of winners! Todd Satogata, Chuanxiang Tang, and Rüdiger Schmidt IPAC 2013

Student Poster Session IPAC’13: Example Mark Sheet Todd Satogata, Chuanxiang Tang, and Rüdiger Schmidt IPAC 2013

Student Poster Session IPAC’13 Spreadsheet will be displayed on a screen in the judging room The judges will see the top 10 posters and can make comments or vetos. Todd Satogata, Chuanxiang Tang, and Rüdiger Schmidt IPAC 2013

Student Poster Session: IPAC’11 History Interesting: No large difference at the first 10 (From Kay Wittenburg and Rüdiger Schmidt)

Student Poster Session IPAC’13: Judging Criteria marks Presentation of poster /10 B. Clarity of (verbal) explanation /5 C. Scientific merit /15 D. Student’s contribution Total /40

Presentation of Poster Student Poster Session IPAC’13: Judging Criteria Presentation of Poster Note: any marks in the range 0-10 can be awarded 10 Poster explains scientific content clearly. Strong visual impact; good balance between text and graphics. Graphics are well chosen, properly presented and labelled, and properly explained. Text is easy to read. 8 Poster could explain scientific content more clearly. Good visual impact; but there may be too much or too little text. Graphics could be improved, and/or more clearly explained. Text is generally good, could be clearer. 6 Poster could explain scientific content more clearly. Reasonably well presented poster, but with too much or too little text. Graphics could be significantly improved, and/or more clearly explained. Text not very well written. 3 Difficult to understand scientific content. Some visual impact. Much too much or much too little text. Graphics are poorly presented, and difficult to understand. Text is poorly written. Not possible to understand scientific content. Little or no visual impact. Graphics are very poorly presented, with little or no explanation. Text is pretty useless.

Clarity of Verbal Explanation Student Poster Session IPAC’13: Judging Criteria Clarity of Verbal Explanation Note: any marks in the range 0-5 can be awarded 5 Extremely clear and well-structured description of the work and its significance, highlighting the main points, pitched at the right level. 4 Generally clear and coherent explanation of the work, with an effort to take into account knowledge/expertise of the listener. 3 Explanation is mostly clear, but some points may be obscure. 2 Some of the main points are clearly communicated, but many of the details are difficult to understand. 1 Explanation almost impossible to follow or understand.

Scientific Merit Student Poster Session IPAC’13: Judging Criteria Note: any marks in the range 0-15 can be awarded 15 Work is of outstanding scientific quality, showing innovative ideas, methods, or results. Potential for significant impact in the field. 10 Work is of high quality, with some novel aspects. 5 Work is of reasonable quality, but essentially routine. Work is significantly flawed, or of generally very poor quality.

Student's Contribution Student Poster Session IPAC’13: Judging Criteria Student's Contribution Note: any marks in the range 0-10 can be awarded 10 Student appears to have had a leading role in all aspects of the studies. 8 Student has made a major contribution to most aspects of the work. 6 Student has been closely involved in most aspects of the work. 3 Student has made some contribution to the work. Student is essentially reporting the work of others.

Student Poster Session IPAC’13: Water and Wood Posters Elevators