On making non-peer reviewed templates more visually distinct

[ejhumphrey]

There has been discussion in the last few years, and particularly on the board, about making it crystal clear to the community that late-breaking demo papers are not part of the proceedings, since they aren't peer reviewed in the same way as publications, and thus aren't held to the same high standards. However, LBD papers get cited (rather than footnoted), and we should address this trend.

What do folks think about changing non-proceedings templates (LBD, MIREX) to look sufficiently distinct from ISMIR / TISMIR papers? We could explicitly call them technical reports, white papers, or something of the sort, so that anyone who finds them on the internet / google scholar is not confused about the status (and thus rigor) of the article?

something like this provides a clear right-hand label? https://www.sharelatex.com/templates/journals/copernicus-discussions

[julian-urbano]

Definitely +1

I'd make them 1-column, sans font, and be strict with the copyright notice.

[f0k]

I think a sans font may make them harder to read, but 1-column is a good idea. And a marker on the side (as proposed by Eric, or as on arxiv papers) and above the title (like, say, in ICLR papers) would be helpful. It should clearly say that this is non-reviewed/unpublished work, and somewhere in a footline on the first page it should indicate how to cite it correctly (people may still want to).

[blairkan]

Having a marker of some kind makes sense. Is there also a way to make a distinction between LBD and proceedings papers in the publication metadata schema? E.g., Extended Abstracts for the Late-Breaking Demo Session of the XXth International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference versus Proceedings of the XXth International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference? Hopefully this could further clarify confusion when pdfs get indexed automatically.