{"id":615,"date":"2016-03-29T00:30:07","date_gmt":"2016-03-29T05:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/?p=615"},"modified":"2016-04-01T04:10:06","modified_gmt":"2016-04-01T09:10:06","slug":"a-look-at-the-keywords-in-infovis-2016-submissions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/2016\/a-look-at-the-keywords-in-infovis-2016-submissions\/","title":{"rendered":"A Look at the Keywords in InfoVis 2016 Submissions"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s that time of year again. InfoVis\u00a0abstracts have been submitted, and lots of people are\u00a0scrambling to finish their full submission.<\/p>\n

I was curious about the distribution of keywords in the submissions, so I visualized some of the data\u00a0available to the program committee (PC)<\/a>.\u00a0After checking with the chairs, I thought others might be curious about the results.<\/p>\n

Note that these are only abstracts, so\u00a0there will probably be some attrition before\u00a0the full paper submission deadline. To see a MUCH more thorough analysis of\u00a0multiple years and venues, check out http:\/\/keyvis.org<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Following the rules<\/h2>\n

The instructions state that submissions may use\u00a0up to 4 keywords<\/strong>. Ha! That limit\u00a0seems to be completely ignored by a third of submissions. Having lots of keywords makes\u00a0it very confusing and difficult for the\u00a0chairs and PCs to determine a proper fit. It also really shows a lack of focus.<\/p>\n

\"keywords<\/a><\/p>\n

And the winner is…<\/h2>\n

The most common keyword is “Quantitative Evaluation” with 42 submissions. Although I’m optimistic that quantitative studies\u00a0are a plurality, those submission make up\u00a0less than\u00a018% of the 239\u00a0abstracts. However,\u00a0it’s not clear how to interpret that number\u00a0because I’ve spotted a few abstracts that have a performance evaluation but aren’t labelled\u00a0accordingly.<\/p>\n

A question worth asking is\u00a0whether\u00a0there are enough PC members who are experts in quantitative experiment design to review all of these submissions. If\u00a0the number of submissions with quantitative experiments increased, could we ensure that every one of them gets a PC member who has taken at least one\u00a0course entirely devoted to experimental methods?<\/p>\n

\"submissions<\/a><\/p>\n

Per Robert Kosara<\/a>‘s suggestion, I sorted by count. The use of keywords\u00a0follows an impressively\u00a0smooth power law:<\/p>\n

\"submissions-per-keyword-sorted-by-count\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Co-occurrences<\/h2>\n

Perhaps it’s not surprising, but quantitative evaluation and qualitative evaluation\u00a0appear together farm more often than other\u00a0keyword pairs. Here are\u00a0the top co-occurring pairs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
keyword1<\/th>\nkeyword2<\/th>\ncount<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
QuanEval<\/td>\nQualEval<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
QuanEval<\/td>\nVisuaDes<\/td>\n10<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
InterDes<\/td>\nhci<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Geo<\/td>\nGraph<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
QuanEval<\/td>\nLaborat<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
hci<\/td>\nui<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Masses<\/td>\nDissem<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
ui<\/td>\nInterDes<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Per Enrico’s<\/a>\u00a0question, here’s a small multiple\u00a0list of\u00a0the top five pairs for each keyword. I posted a top 10 resorted table here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"small<\/a><\/p>\n

I’m not a fan of these visualizations, but here’s an adjacency matrix<\/a> with all of the pairings.<\/p>\n

Other questions<\/h2>\n

Down the line, I’m curious\u00a0how the attrition rate between\u00a0abstract and\u00a0full paper will vary\u00a0by keyword. Also, I’d be happy to repeat this for SciVis or VAST if\u00a0any PCs or chairs want a similar breakdown. Just let me know.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It’s that time of year again. InfoVis\u00a0abstracts have been submitted, and lots of people are\u00a0scrambling to finish their full submission. I was curious about the distribution of keywords in the submissions, so I visualized some of the data\u00a0available to the program committee (PC).\u00a0After checking with the chairs, I thought others might be curious about the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":624,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":3,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[15,23],"class_list":["post-615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-visualization","tag-infovis","tag-visualization"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=615"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/615\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":643,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/615\/revisions\/643"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/steveharoz.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}