How to Handle a Conflict as PC Chair?

Adapted and extended from the PC Chair speech in CCC’26, based on several different issues:

1.      Identify that there is an ethical issue. Usually someone will know something is wrong and say something. They’ll sometimes describe the issue as smaller than it is, they’ll sometimes not have the full and accurate picture. This step is the hardest. Even I, who have very sharp instincts for ethical issues, miss them sometimes.

2.      Pause. Handling the issue well would and should take longer than handling normal business. That’s ok, because there usually aren’t many ethical issues. It’s important to handle ethical issues well for the sake of our community, the people and their careers. Until you find out what happened, do not say anything other than that you’re looking into the issue.

3.      Find out. A conflict usually involves two papers. Get both sides of the story. You might have to ask pointed questions to get the full story. In addition, get the opinion of an objective, relevant expert. People in our community usually don’t lie, and the stories will likely match up. Figure out the timeline for yourself, understand what happened.   

4.      Write to the PC. I believe in a digest from the chair plus the raw data from the authors and the expert: let people describe in their own words what happened. Once the committee has all the relevant information, let them discuss. Usually, experienced and conscientious members of the PC will chime in and raise the relevant points. I’m a great believer in giving people enough time to think. Our discussion lasted about a day by email, and once we reached a decision, I gave the PC time to make sure they stand behind the decision.

5.      Mistakes. Having two papers get the same result is very common, since much of research is doing “the next thing”, and often there are several experts who know what “the next thing” is. Usually, authors resolve conflicts amongst themselves. When a PC gets involved, it usually means that everyone made mistakes* (sometimes including the PC). Not all mistakes are alike – some mistakes are understandable, some mistakes are bad. Figure out who made what mistake and why. Often mistakes happen because there are young people involved who do not fully understand the mores of our academic community. I believe that it’s up to the senior people to be mindful of this reality and handle it with care and generosity.

6.      Write to the authors. It’s not enough to make a good decision, people need to know it. I invested a lot of thought in my messages to the authors. I know that this is a sensitive issue and that whatever I say will be remembered. I also know that as an Israeli I’m at risk of insulting someone. I tried to explain the PC’s decision and uproot the mistakes, respectfully and sensitively. I tried to explain the different sides to one another. I always think about the day after and how we all need to continue doing good work and live together as a community. I believe that when you handle ethical issues well, this is what happens. Honestly, I was very nervous until I got the responses of the authors. I was relieved when it seemed that my messages were well received and agreement was reached.

* To be clear, I think that life means making mistakes, because never making a mistake is a mistake in itself. I certainly make many mistakes.