Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

Here again are the links to those hotels:http://www.spartahotell.se/e/index.htmlhttp://www.concordia.se/start_en.aspVarious other hotels in the city of Lund and their web sites:Lilla hotellet: http://www.lillahotellet.com/Hotell Ahlström: http://eng.graddhyllan.dana1.se/default.asp?ID=216&pID=201Hotell Oskar: http://www.hotelloskar.se/enStayAt Lund: http://www.stayat.se/en/Hotel Duxiana: http://www.lund.hotelduxiana.com/?s=inenglish&lang=engHotel Lundia: http://www.lundia.se/?sid=211Grand Hotel: http://grandilund.com/We would also like you to be aware of the following two websites, intended to helppeople find hotel rooms in Lund and Malmö:http://www.lund.se/Besokare/Bo/Hotell/http://www.booking.com/city/se/malmo.en.htmlSELECTION PROCEDUREA total of 152 abstracts were submitted for the Main Colloquium (not counting theworkshops). From these, twenty were selected for oral presentation, plus twoalternates. The acceptance rate for oral presentations is thus 13.2% (not including thealternates). In addition, however, eighteen abstracts (including the two oral alternates)were selected for the poster sessions, so the overall acceptance rate is 25%.Each of the 152 abstracts was sent to up to six external reviewers, mostcommonly four or five. The reviewers did not include local organizers or GLOW Boardmembers. The reviews were returned before December 15, 2012. The 152 abstractswere ranked by the grades given by the reviewers (using EasyChair), the 61 highestranked ones being selected for further consideration and evaluation by a selectioncommittee consisting of two representatives of the GLOW Board and threerepresentatives of the local organizers. On a meeting in Lund on 15th January 2013,the selection committee considered and discussed in detail the highest-ranked 61abstracts, with a special focus on (a) those abstracts that got the fewest externalreviews, (b) those abstracts for which the grades given by the external reviewersdiverged substantially and, furthermore, (c) any of the 61 abstracts a selectioncommittee member wanted to be discussed. The abstracts were discussed one by one.On the basis of the reviewers’ rankings and comments and the assessments by the fivecommittee members, twenty abstracts were identified for presentation at theColloquium, and eighteen additional abstracts were selected for poster presentations.Of the latter, two were also selected as alternate presentations for the Colloquium.9