| 1 | Nov 2, 2011 3:34 AM | I refrained from discussing my work with colleagues from other institutions during the reviewing process. |
| 2 | Nov 1, 2011 2:57 PM | My main experience of awkwardness was that I found myself hesitating to send the paper to *anybody* because, each time I did, I had to check that they were not on the PC or the ERC -- and then double-check again because I was nervous about getting hammered if I made a mistake. |
| 3 | Nov 1, 2011 1:47 PM | I had to hold myself back when discussing ideas with colleagues, not to disclose the outstanding POPL submission. |
| 4 | Oct 24, 2011 10:04 AM | Would have posted the draft to arxiv. |
| 5 | Oct 24, 2011 3:06 AM | I did give talks on this material and only much later realised that there were PC/ERC members in the audience. My behaviour would not have changed had I known because I was invited by non-PC members. |
| 6 | Oct 22, 2011 11:37 AM | not sure |
| 7 | Oct 22, 2011 5:55 AM | none of the above |
| 8 | Oct 21, 2011 3:12 PM | I did not contact a potential thesis committee member for fear of interfering with the DBR. This inconvenienced me quite a bit. The timing was pure coincidence, though. |
| 9 | Oct 21, 2011 2:19 PM | There was no significant change in this case. |
| 10 | Oct 18, 2011 4:52 AM | Did not offer to give a talk at any institution. |
| 11 | Oct 17, 2011 5:26 PM | No change in action. |
| 12 | Oct 17, 2011 4:01 PM | I did not change my actions.
Anyway, I think sending stuff to PC/ERC members for comments should not be done after submission, but obviously that cannot be controlled. |
| 13 | Oct 17, 2011 1:29 PM | Did not affect the dissemination of my research |
| 14 | Oct 17, 2011 11:35 AM | did not send draft to interested colleagues |
| 15 | Oct 17, 2011 10:53 AM | (See above -- felt leary about advertising for a post doc position. Wound up advertising late in the process.) |
| 16 | Oct 17, 2011 9:02 AM | Normally I would have placed a draft of my paper on my webpage not long after submission. |
| 17 | Oct 17, 2011 8:35 AM | The work has been presented at several workshops before. It is likely the referees recognized it. |
| 18 | Oct 17, 2011 8:32 AM | None - I didn't change anything. |
| 19 | Oct 17, 2011 8:30 AM | I did put the submission on my Web pages, as I usually do, but had no compelling reason to send it directly to a PC/ERC member. I did refrain from sending it to one colleague because I thought he might be asked to do an external review. |
| 20 | Oct 17, 2011 8:17 AM | None of the above. Since I was burned in the past with telling people about research results before publication, I no longer do so or only if I can speak at a reasonably large number of places at once. |
| 21 | Oct 17, 2011 8:10 AM | The review period overlapped with my attending several conferences. I met several ERC members there, who are experts in the field. I would normally have discussed the paper with them, but I felt that I could not. So lots of wasted opportunities. |
| 22 | Oct 17, 2011 8:00 AM | In this case, due to scheduling constraints, I probably would not have given a talk at an institution at which a PC/ERC member was located anyway. But I have done so in the recent past for other papers (e.g. I gave a talk about my (venue redacted) paper, while it was under submission, at institutions where PC members were located). |
| 23 | Oct 17, 2011 7:54 AM | I rarely distribute/promote work before paper is accepted, so nothing changed because of the reviewing process. |
| 24 | Oct 17, 2011 7:49 AM | I think that it was pretty easy for the PC or ERC members to know that I wrote the paper in that specific case, so I did not try to hide too much. On the other hand, I avoided sending my paper directly to PC/ERC members (I very scarcely do it in any case) or did not announce the work on the mailing lists of interest. |