RMCI 2009 - The 6th International Symposium on Risk Management and Cyber-Informatics: RMCI 2009

The 6th International Symposium on Risk Management and Cyber-Informatics: RMCI 2009
In the Context of
The 13th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics: WMSCI 2009
July 10th - 13 th, 2009 ¨C Orlando, Florida, USA
http://www.iiis2009.org/rmci/
Honorary Presidents of Past Conferences:
Bela Banathy, Stafford Beer, George Klir, Karl Pribram, Paul Jensen and Gheorghe Benga.
Program Committee Chair: Michael Savoie
General Chairs: C. Dale Zinn and Nagib Callaos (WMSCI)
Organizing Committee Co-Chairs: Jorge Baralt, Belkis S¨¢nchez and Andr¨¦s Tremante
Conference¡¯s Major Themes
• Risk Management
• Risk Management in Informatics and Cybernetics
• Applying Informatics and Cybernetics in Risk
Management
• Applications of Risk Management and Cyber-
Informatics
Program Committee
The Program Committee has about 20 members, who
are complemented by about 70 reviewers, from about
38 countries. The names, affiliations and countries of
the PC¡¯s members as well as the additional reviewers
could be found at the Conference¡¯s web site, or more
specifically at www.iiis2009.org/rmci/PCommitte.asp.
The Program Committee is mostly formed by 1) the
authors of the sessions' best papers of RMCI 2008; 2)
its effective invited session organizers who also were
co-editors of the conference proceedings; and 3) some
members of past RMCI Conferences, who were also
authors of best papers. (Those who manifested no
interest in participating in the Program Committee
have been removed).
Ways of Participation
Participation in the conference could be done by
means of one or several of the following activities:
• The submission of a paper/abstract.
• The organization of Invited Session(s)
• Tutorial proposals
• The organization of Focus Symposium.
• The reviewing process.
• The conference promotion.
• Recommending scholars/researchers in order to
have an active participation and/or submit the
papers.
• Panel Presentation.
• Proposing Organizations/Institutes/Universities
as Academic/Scientific Co-Sponsors.
Kinds of Participants
Participation of both, researchers and practitioners is
strongly encouraged. Papers may be submitted on:
research in science and engineering, case studies
drawn on professional practice and consulting, and
position papers based on large and rich experience
gained through executive/managerial practices and
decision-making. Hence, the Program Committee has
been conformed according to the criteria given above.
Types of Submissions Accepted
1. Papers/Abstracts
• Research papers
a. in science
b. in engineering, including systems
analysis, design, implementation,
synthesis, deployment, maintenance,
etc.
• Review papers
• Case studies
• Position papers
• Reports: technical reports, engineering
reports, reports on a methodological
application, etc.
2. Invited Sessions
Data regarding invited session to be organized by
the submitter (title of the invited session, name of
the organizer, affiliation, titles of the papers
accepted for the invited session, authors¡¯ names,
etc.). More details could be found below or at the
conference web site.
3. Panel Presentation and/or Round Table
Proposals. Panel or round table proposals can be
made using the web page related to invited
sessions proposals.
4. Focus Symposia (which should include a
minimum of 15 papers). Focus symposia
proposals can be made using the web page related
to invited sessions proposals.
5. Tutorial or workshop presentation, which can
be proposed sending an email to
tutorial-AT-mail.wmsci2009.org
Deadlines
February 25th, 2009: Submission of draft papers
(2000-5000), extended abstracts (400-2000) and
abstracts for-presentation-only (200-500 words)
February 25th, 2009: Invited Sessions proposals.
Acceptance of invited session proposals will be done
in about one week of its proposal via the respective
conference web form, and final approval will be done
after the inclusion of at least five papers in the
respective session
March 16th, 2009: Notifications of acceptance.
May 27th, 2009: Submission of camera-ready or final
versions of the accepted papers.
July 10th, 2009: Conference Starts
July 13th, 2009: Conference Ends
Some invited sessions might have a different timetable
according to its organizer and chair, but in any case
the camera ready deadline should be met.
Three Kinds of Reviewing Processes
Draft papers and abstracts will have three kinds of
reviewing: double-blind, non-blind and participatory
reviewing:
1. Each submission will be sent to at least three
reviewers, randomly selected, from the Program
Committee¡¯s members and from the additional
reviewers, for its double-blind reviewing.
2. Draft papers and extended abstracts will also
have non-blind, open reviewing by means of 1-3
reviewers suggested by the submitting authors.
The author(s) of each submitted paper/abstract
should nominate at least one or two reviewers
(accordingly to the submission option selected),
and can nominate a maximum of three reviewers
for the non-blind review of their respective
submitted paper/abstract.
3. Submissions will also be included in a
Participative Peer-to-Peer Reviewing (PPPR).
Consequently, submissions will be posted,
without previous screening, in the conference
web site in a way that it could be accessed,
reviewed, commented and evaluated by the
authors who sent draft papers or abstracts in the
same area or topic. Authors will get a login and a
password in order to have this kind of access.
Details related to the Participative Peer-to-Peer
Reviewing (PPPR), as well as the reasoning
supporting it can be found at
http://www.iiis2009.org/Wmsci/Website/
Pptpr.asp?vc=8,
Acceptance of a submitted paper will be based on all
kinds of reviewing, but the first two (double-blind and
non-blind) will be necessary conditions for draft
papers and extended abstracts.
The selection of the best 10%-20% papers, for their
publication in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics
and Informatics (JSCI), will also be done based on the
three kinds of reviewing.
Several studies have shown the strength and the
weaknesses of double-blind and non-blind methods of
reviewing. Many editors and authors also addressed
this issue, some of whom have concluded that the
reviewing should be double blinded and some others
reached the opposite conclusion. David Kaplan, a
highly cited author for example, stated that to
overcome the weaknesses of peer-reviewing and to fix
it ¡°Review of a manuscript would be solicited from
colleagues by the authors. The first task of these
reviewers would be to identify revisions that could be
made to improve the manuscript. Second, the
reviewers would be responsible for writing an
evaluation of the revised work.¡± (Kaplan D., 2005,
¡°How to Fix Peer Review¡±, The Scientist, Volume 19,
Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6. Also in
www.scienceboard.org/community/perspectives.142.h
tml
Since both of these reviewing methods are opposites
without contradiction between them, both methods can
be used in a way as to complement one another,
getting their advantages and reducing their respective
disadvantages. This is the aim of RMCI 2009¡¯s
Organizing Committee while choosing to combine
both of them in the reviewing process of the papers
that are submitted to the conference.
A Multi-Methodological Approach for
Reviewing Submissions sent to a Multi- and
Inter-Disciplinary Conference
Considering the multi- and inter-disciplinary nature of
RMCI 2009 and the fact that there are different kinds
of epistemological values, disciplinary rigors,
reviewing standards, and conference organizational
models, the RMCI 2009's Organizing Committee
considered as highly desirable to have different kinds
of submissions to the conference with different
methods of their respective reviewing. Accordingly,
submissions of draft papers will be differentiated from
abstracts' submissions. Each kind of submission will
have two different reviewing methods as well.
Consequently, authors will have the opportunity to
choose the way of submitting their paper that best fits
their disciplinary rigor and their organization's
requirements with regards to the conference
organizational model. In any kind of submission
authors should clearly indicate the contribution
made by them.
Accordingly, there will be different reviewing
methods, going from the most formal one, to less
formal methods followed by those who conceive the
knowledge communication made through conferences
as a more informal process. Consequently, authors
will have different ways of making their submissions,
and these ways will be highly related to different
conference organizational models followed by
prestigious scholar societies or suggested by highly
cited authors.
Three kinds of reviewing processes will be applied to
submission made for their presentation at the
conference and their inclusion in the hard copy and
CD version of the conference proceedings. These three
kinds are: 1) double-blinded reviews; 2) open, nonblind
reviews; and 3) participative peer-to-peer
reviews by authors who made submissions to the same
topic or area in the conference.
The 3 submission options that authors have are the
following:
A. Full draft papers (2000-5000 words) submitted
for their presentation at the conference and their
inclusion in the conference proceedings, in their hard
copy and CD versions. These kind of submissions will
be reviewed by a Modified Kaplan's Method, where
the submission's author should suggest at least two
scholars, researchers and/or professionals for the
open, non-blind review of his/her paper. Each paper
will also be sent to at least 3 reviewers for its doubleblind
review as well. Acceptance decisions will be
based on both kinds of reviews: Non-blind and
double-blind ones.
B. Extended abstracts (400-2000 words, not a full
paper) submitted for their presentation at the
conference and their inclusion in the conference
proceedings, in their hard copy and CD versions.
Authors submitting Extended Abstracts should
suggest at least one scholar, researcher, or professional
for the open, non-blind review of his/her abstract.
Each extended abstract will also be sent to at least
three reviewers for its double-blind reviewing as well.
Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of
reviewing: Non-blind and double-blind ones. "The
submission should contain a scholar [or a
professional] exposition of ideas, techniques, and
results, including motivation and a clear
comparison with related work." (as it is indicated
for submissions to be made to the Annual IEEE
Symposia on Foundations of Computer Science:
FOCS).
C. Abstracts (200-500 words, not a full paper and not
more than 500 words) are considered for their possible
acceptance for presentation only. Authors submitting
Abstracts may suggest 1-3 scholars, researchers or
professionals for open, non-blind reviewing of his/her
abstract. Each brief abstract will also be sent to at least
three reviewers for its double-blind review as well.
Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of
reviewing: Non-blind and double-blind ones. The
submission should be similar to the abstracts or
introductions usually written at the beginning of a full
paper, containing a scholarly or a professional
exposition of ideas, techniques, and results, including
motivation and a clear comparison with related work.
Acceptance of this kind of abstracts is for presentation
only. Just an abstract will be included in the preconference
proceedings. Their respective full
paper will not be published in the pre-conference
proceedings but may be published in the postconference
volume of the proceedings if:
• Their respective presenters are willing to
include them in the post-conference volume
of the proceedings; AND
• The full paper is received, according to the
required format, by the respective deadline
(about 20 days after the conference is over);
AND
• The chair of the session where the paper was
presented recommends its inclusion in the
post-conference volume of the proceedings,
supporting his/her recommendation on the
opinions of the session¡¯s attendees.
Acceptance policy
The acceptance policy which is usually applied to the
submissions made to RMCI, the symposia organized
in its context, the collocated Conferences and other
conferences organized by the International Institute of
Informatics and Systemics (IIIS), is oriented by:
A. The majority rule, when there is no agreement
among the reviewers with regards to acceptance
or non-acceptance, of a given submission.
B. The non-acceptance of the submission when there
is agreement among its reviewers for not
accepting it.
C. Acceptance of the paper when in doubt (a draw
or a tie among the opinions of the reviewers, for
example).
The reasoning that is supporting this acceptance policy
is based on very well established facts:
• There usually is a low level agreement among
reviewers
• A significant probability of refusing high quality
papers when the acceptance policy is oriented in
such a way as to just accept those papers with no
disagreement for their respective acceptance.
• The possible plagiarism (of some non-ethical
reviewer) of the content of non-accepted papers.
Details regarding the reasoning supporting this
acceptance policy are given in the conference web
site.
Submitted papers/abstracts will be sent to reviewers.
The best 10% of the papers will also be published in
the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics
(JSCI). Acceptance decisions regarding papers
presentation at the conference, and their respective
inclusion in the conference¡¯s proceedings, will be
based on their content review and/or on the respective
author¡¯s CV. Invited papers will not be reviewed and
their acceptance decision will be based on the topic
and the respective author¡¯s CV. Some of these invited
papers, if chosen by the session chair as the best paper
of the session, might also be published by JSCI
Journal, because the 30% of sessions best papers will
also be published in the journal. All accepted papers,
which should not exceed six single-spaced typed
pages, will be published by means of paper and
electronic proceedings.
Reviewing of papers submitted to invited
session organizers
Organizers of invited sessions are autonomous with
regards to the reviewing method to be used in the
reviewing process of the papers to be submitted to
their respective sessions. They can use any of the
methods described above, or some combination of
them.
In some cases, like it is the case of Invited Papers, the
CVs of the authors will also support the decision
regarding the acceptance, or non-acceptance, of the
respective paper.
Organizers of the best invited sessions or focus
symposia will co-edit the respective proceedings
volume, the CD version of the proceedings and might
be invited to be invited editors or co-editors of the
JSCI Journal issue where their session or symposia
papers will be published. Multiple author books, or
JSCI journal issues, might be published by IIIS, based
on the best-invited sessions, the best focus symposia
or the best mini-conferences, and the topic of the
papers.
Reviewers not meeting the reviewing deadline
If the reviewers selected for reviewing a given
paper/abstract do not make their respective reviews
before the papers/abstracts acceptance deadline, the
selection committee may inform the respective author
about this fact.
Reviewing of papers and abstract other than
research full papers
The reviewing process of abstracts, case studies,
position papers, reports, white papers, panel
presentations and round table proposals will be based
on the relevance of the topic, its potential for
interdisciplinary communications, its educational
value and/or its analogical thinking potential.
Papers to be included in the conference
proceedings
Accepted papers that have at least one of their authors
with a confirmed registration status in the conference,
will be included in both versions of the conference
proceedings (hardcopy and CD). Papers received after
the respective deadline may be included in the postconference
proceedings volume. Any error that results
in the non-inclusion of a paper that should have been
included in the proceedings will be corrected
including such a paper in the post-conference
proceedings volume.
Paper to be included, later, in the Journal
JSCI
Each accepted paper or presentation is candidate for
being a best paper of its respective session and,
consequently, it is candidate for a second reviewing
process to be made by the reviewers of the Journal of
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (JSCI), for its
possible inclusion among the best 10%-20% papers
presented at the conference which will be selected and
published in the JSCI, after doing possible
modifications (in content/format) and extensions as to
adequate them to a journal publication.
Submission of Draft Papers and Abstracts
Abstracts or draft papers should be submitted taking
into account the following format:
1. Each submission should be related to at least one of
the major themes, or the special symposia, given
above.
2. Each submission should have a title.
3. Abstracts for-presentation-only should have 200 to
500 words, extended abstracts should have 400 to
2000 words and draft papers should have 2000 to
5000 words, in English.
4. Author(s) with names, addresses, telephone and fax
numbers, and e-mail addresses should be included.
5. Each author making a submission should
necessarily suggest at least one or two (accordingly
to the submission option selected) and a maximum
of three reviewers for the open review of the
submitted extended abstract or paper draft,
according to the acceptation policy stated above.
Abstracts or draft papers should be sent via the
conference web site
http://www.iiis2009.org/rmci/Submission.asp, filling
the respective form and uploading the respective paper
or abstract. If the conference web site is not accessible
for you, you can also make your submission by e-mail,
attaching it to the following e-mail address:
rmci-AT-mail.iiis2009.org
Conference Fees
The registration fee for IIIS' members
(http://www.iiis.org/iiis) will be $590 before their
Camera Ready deadline and $640 after their Camera
Ready deadline. Additional $50 applies for nonmembers
of IIIS.
Full-time students at academic institutions will have a
discount of $100 off the registration fee indicated
above. This discount applies only to the registration
fee. To qualify for the discounted fee, students must
provide, via fax or postal mail, an official certification
issued by their university or institution verifying they
are full-time students and a copy of their valid Student
ID card. Full-time students that register at the
conference must have both forms of verification with
them when they arrive at the registration desk.
Authors of papers accepted for their respective
presentation at RMCI 2009, or any of the symposia
organized in its context or any of the collocated
conferences, may apply for a complimentary, free IIIS
membership at
http://www.iiis2009.org/Wmsci/Website/IIISMembers
.asp?vc=8, after getting the acceptance e-mail related
to the presentation of their paper and before making
their registration in the conference, so they can
register with the reduced fee.
Each registration fee entitles the publication and
presentation of one paper of up to 6 pages. The
registered author may include one additional paper (of
up to 6 pages and authored by him/her) at an extra
charge of $300. The additional paper must be authored
and presented by the registered author.
If two or more authors of the same paper attend the
conference, each of them must pay his/her respective
registration fee in full.
There is a limit of 6 pages for each paper in the
Proceedings. At most 2 additional pages can be
included, as long as the registered author pays the fee
of US$ 75.00 per extra page.
This fee will include exclusively:
• A CD-ROM version of the proceedings
• One volume of the hard copy version of the
conference proceedings. (If you are an author, you
will receive the volume in which your paper was
published).
• Coffee breaks
• Welcome Reception
Any other expenses must be afforded by the
participants.
The registration fee does not include any postconference
services. There will be additional shipping
and handling costs to be paid by those registered
authors who, for unforeseen reasons, cannot attend
RMCI 2009 and will ask us to send them the
proceedings after the conference. Any other postconference
administrative requirements will be
charged at a rate of US$20 per staff hour required to
elaborate such a requirement, with a minimum of
US$10. Post-conference requirements will have their
own deadline, which, in no case, will be more than
four (4) months counted from the last day of the
conference.
Invited Sessions
Invited sessions¡¯ organizers are autonomous in the
promotion of their respective session as well as in
collecting, reviewing and selecting the papers to be
presented at their respective sessions.
An invited session organizer has a similar role to the
invited editor in a journal, i.e. he or she is invited to
identify and look for high quality papers, to review the
papers of his, or her, session, to select the reviewers
that will help him, or her, and to decide which papers
he/she wants to be presented at respective invited
session.
The invitation is an academic, not a financial one,
because, unfortunately, we have no financial sponsor
and the conference should self-finance itself.
Consequently, we cannot make any financial
commitment.
Invited sessions and symposia organizers with the best
performance will be co-editors of the proceedings
volume where their session or symposia paper were
included.
Chairs of invited sessions will select the best paper
presented at their session. Sessions¡¯ best papers will
be reviewed by reviewers of the Journal of Systemics,
Cybernetics, and Informatics (JSCI) in order to select
the best 30% of them for their respective publications
in the Journal.
Best invited sessions and symposia organizers are
candidates for invited editors or co-editors of the JSCI
Journal special issue related to their field of research
interest.
Details with regards to the role of invited session
organizers and to suggested steps that they might
make in organizing their respective sessions are given
in the conference web site.
Guidelines for Reviewers (and authors)
The Golden Rule ¡°Treat others as you would like to
be treated¡±, apply very well for the most general and
essential guidelines for reviewers. Siegelman (1988)
adapted this golden rule of the Ethics of Reciprocity in
what might be called the Golden Rule of Reviewing.
He stated ¡°Referee manuscript as you would like to
have your own papers treated¡± (Siegelman, advice to
authors. Radiology 1988; 166:278-280; in Weller,
2002, Editorial Peer Review, its Strength and
Weaknesses, Medford, New Jersey).
"The Golden Rule" is an essential moral principle
found in almost all major religious and cultures. It has
been conceived as the most essential basis for the
modern concept of human right. Principal
philosophers and religious figures have stated it in
different ways. At
www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm, for
example, versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world
religious are quoted. Analogously we might conceive
Siegelman¡¯s Reviewing Golden Rule as an essential
rule that can be applied to virtually all reviewing
processes and methods in spite of their high diversity
and the variety of their ends and means.
To be more specific, with regards to some guidelines
for reviewers, would depend on the objectives sought
by the reviewing process and on its inherent
limitations and restrictions. Different editorial
objectives, for example, would probably originate
different guidelines. Different disciplines with
possibly different epistemological values would also
probably require different guidelines. Journal
reviewing might have different guidelines to the
reviewing required by conferences presentations or
proceedings publications. Scientific research papers
would probably have different guidelines than those
recommended for papers of case studies, work in
progress, experience-based reflections, industrial
innovations, analogical thinking, etc.
One way of dealing with the inherent diversity of
disciplines and kinds of papers in a multi-disciplinary
context is to ask the reviewers (beside their
constructive feedback oriented to improve the paper,
their reasoned recommendation for accepting/rejecting
the paper) to rate the paper according different criteria
established by the respective editor or the respective
conference¡¯s chair or organizers. The weights of these
criteria would depend on the kind of article submitted
and on the nature and the objectives of the
corresponding Journal or the conference.
Consequently, in multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary
contexts, especially in those oriented to forums
integrated by the academic, industrial and public
sectors, we recommend the reviewers to rate the
article being reviewed according the following
criteria:
1. Originality: Not known or experienced before. A
technique or a method not used before. Has this
or similar work been previously reported? Are
the problems and/or approaches in the paper
completely new?
2. Novelty: According this criterion, it is not
necessary for the paper to develop new
techniques, or to generate new knowledge, but it
should, at least, apply, or combine, them in a
fresh and novel way or shed some new light on
their applicability in a certain domain.
3. Innovation: A new product, process or service
based on new or known technologies, methods or
methodologies. Known technologies and
techniques might be combined to generate new
product or service with potential users in the
market. What defines an innovation is a new kind
of possible users of a product or a service, not
necessarily new knowledge, new techniques, new
technologies, new methods, or new applications.
Innovation is related to new uses or new markets.
4. Relevance: Importance, usefulness, and/or
applicability of the ideas, methods and/or
techniques described in the paper.
5. Appropriateness: Suitability, agreeableness,
compatibility, congruity, and adequacy of the
paper to the areas and topics of the journal or the
conference. Would the article perhaps better be
presented at another conference?
6. Significance: Importance and noteworthiness of
the ideas, methods and techniques used and/or
described in the article. The problem approached
in the article should be interesting and natural,
and not just be chosen by the authors because it
can be attacked by their methods. What it is
presented in the article is not just obvious and
trivial ideas.
7. Quality: Scientific, technical, and/or
methodological soundness of the article.
Correctness of results, proofs and/or reflections.
Inclusion in the articles of details that allow
checking the correctness of the results or citations
of articles where can be found the proof or parts
of it.
8. Presentation: Adequate organization of the
article and the language used in it, as to make its
content clear, easily readable and understandable.
Clarity in what has been achieved by the author
of the article. Even technical papers on a narrow
topic should be written such that non-experts can
comprehend the main contribution of the paper
and the methods employed. The paper shouldn't
just be a litany of deep but obscure theorems. The
information of the paper should be available to
the reader with a minimum of effort.
Audiovisual Equipment
The audiovisual equipment provided for most
meetings will be a screen, LCD Projector, and a
laptop. Any other equipment, if needed, will have to
be supplied by the presenter.
Conference Contacts
Phone: +58 (212) 232-7062
Fax: + (407) 656-3516
Conference Secretariat rmci-sec-AT-mail.wmsci2009.org
More details can be found at the Conference web
page: http://www.iiis2009.org/rmci/. Answers to
specific questions can also be requested by e-mail