A thread expanding on the #claps2020 peer-review move from blind to open (after having a conversation with a colleague who wanted to know more about the decision)... (1/9)

In previous years, proposal selection was open and we felt representation was good. We wanted to try blind this year, hoping to be more fair if possible, and also to give those selected the CV bump of "blind review" if going up for tenure (2/9)

After making our selections and then matching sessions with names to contact people, we realized that a few times when people submitted 2+ proposals, we selected all; and we were giving preference to: (3/9)

-academically-written proposals (we are academic librarians at an academic-heavy conference, after all)
-proposals that took more risks in content, which is often a privilege to those in more secure positions
-proposals written by people w/ a lot of experience presenting (4/9)

The opportunities/experience/skills afforded to be able to write a proposal in this way tends to coincide with privilege, and we were concerned we were offering more privilege to present to those who already had it... (5/9)

This privilege also often coincides with dominant culture, and we were worried we were reinforcing norms and preventing inclusion for those from marginalized groups. We decided to scrap the original selection and start over with open review (6/9)

We were transparent to bring forward problems with peer-review. We are having a facilitated discussion at #claps2020 w/ @femilyr who we invited since she has done great research on this topic, has experience with peer-review, and works through a critical lens (7/9)

This session will be both a discussion and a working session (of which we are still developing), where there will be room to talk and room to create something (8/9)

Participants will be encouraged to *do* something with this information, and we will also use it to revise our process in subsequent years. This is an issue for conferences and we hope to create something useful from our transparency and action (9/9)