What is the Role of the Network Programme Coordinator?

***

Strong evidence of exceptional interdisciplinary academic ability (i.e. in the NewPOL Network sense) shall be required of the Principal Network Programme Coordinator (PNPC) who shall have the unique responsibility of one Network Programme. 

He/she may be assisted by colleagues if need be. In this case, there would be a Principal Network Programme Coordinator and her/his team. 

For example, if Prof/Dr/... X is the Principal Network Programme Coordinator for Network Programme 1: The Physics and Mathematics of the Life Sciences in the Universe, colleagues who feel inspired by Network Programme 1 shall contact the NPC for this Network Programme directly and send him/her their Workshop Theme proposal(s) for consideration. 

Please note there is no real "selection" at this stage since all the participants have already been admitted to the NewPOL Consortium Network. The Principal NPCs (and their team) are there for help and guidance. For example, they may consider another Network Programme as more appropriate for a given Workshop Theme. 

Each colleague with a Workshop Theme proposal shall necessarily be his/her own Workshop Coordinator and shall have the responsibility of that particular Workshop. The Workshop participants (10-30 maximum) can be found within or outside our present Lists of Academics, but the Workshop Coordinator her/himself must be a member of the NewPOL Consortium Network. 

Each Network Programme Coordinator has full authority to recruit on their own other participants for the Congress: she/he does not have to refer to some kind of "central authority" beforehand.  New participants become implicitly Members of the NewPOL Consortium Network.

I am asking Network Programme Coordinators to be as open-minded as possible as regards Workshop applications. If in doubt, please do not hesitate to discuss the application with other colleagues and/or myself.

The Congress is indeed open to the General Public: some may have interesting ideas but lack the intellectual tools to express them: they must be helped and encouraged. Certainly not ignored. This is further discussed below.

As I remarked to some of us when we were discussing articles that shall be submitted to the Center's Journal Editorial Board (cf. PART III of the Congress):

>"I quite agree with you that all articles should be peer reviewed but I don't think that there should be a unilateral elitist decision (it could be intimidating for some, especially the general public): authors should be invited to edit/update their articles when the need arises. Rejecting ideas by a chosen few is not very democratic. Help may also be needed to express original ideas coming directly from the general public. You quite often find the opposite situation in some periodicals / journals: the presentation is highly sophisticated but offers nothing new." 

>"Extreme care must be taken with ANY "selection" or "reviewing" process (articles, proposals, projects). Unscrupulous academics with little or no inspiration, opportunistic bureaucrats, business(wo)men and politicians…have, do and shall continue to exist."  

The latter refers to the Intellectual Parasites of this World. Please review a more elaborate comment regarding plagiarism by reviewing the link What is a NC?

The Congress may help to set an example to all: breaking the barriers between those who "know" and those who do not "know".  

*******************

© 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002