Some suggestions I sent to a panel on the above topic. I am sure I missed many key (main) points
- standardised guidelines to reviewers on how to review, currently the reviewing standard is not standard, in both senses of the word!
- If the conferences (at Digital Heritage 2013 Congress Marseille) represented (CAA, Arch. VSMM etc) at least shared some info on how papers et al are reviewed or could be more consistently reviewed it would be of great help to the gathered scholars
- discussion on the major issues in evaluating virtual heritage
- mentioning standard papers and projects that address some of the issues that many people keep returning to without realising it has already been critiqued/tested
- references to current evaluation methods and strategies in related societies (archaeology, ISPR Presence, VR society etc).
- attempt to marshall the references together or a portal to list related resources
Just this week I was explaining to someone problems with Likert surveys that are in journals he had not read, I had to share papers with him myself from these authors as the papers are scattered over the internet and behind academic paywalls.