logseq/pages/todoist___2026-02-06.md

• 2026-02-06 compleanno Davide Pallone todoist-id:: 662G8j2PpvWhH6cF todoist-project:: #📗 Personal todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Controllare SIM aziendale todoist-id:: 6Xvh4wphJf9M6Pw8 todoist-project:: #🏢 Admin todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Riportare giudizi del collegio di ottobre in notion todoist-id:: 6f93qcpGWCCvJw5h todoist-project:: #🎓 Services-PHDICT todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Riempire questionario docenti su UGOV todoist-id:: 6fQMX7f6GmxH7Ggg todoist-project:: #👨‍🏫 Teaching todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-desc:: Link to Logseq todoist-labels:: #source_logseq todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 MODELS 2027 todoist-id:: 6fQPJWR95JC27p9c todoist-project:: #💺 EditoringChairing todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-desc:: From: daniel.varro@liu.se todoist-labels:: #goal #logseqed todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Pubblicazione bando per il finanziamento di progetti di ricerca di Ateneo nell'ambito del progetto Vitality todoist-id:: 6fvrW7WFrW5qVW38 todoist-project:: #🚀 Projects todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-desc:: From: proget@strutture.univaq.it Received: 2026-02-03T08:55:55Z ✉: Web Link --- Okay, here's a concise summary of the email content, broken down into actionable tasks, with a focus on the key information and deadlines (as inferred from the text): Summary: The email is an announcement from the University of Vienna regarding a research funding call for projects related to the Vitality initiative. The deadline for proposal submission is 3.03.2026. The sender requires recipients to submit proposals via email to the designated address (bando.vitality@univaq.it). They are also providing the proposal and supporting documentation. Actionable Tasks: 1. Review Proposal Guidelines: Carefully examine the attached document (Allegates A & B) to understand the submission requirements and formatting. 2. Draft Proposal: Begin drafting the proposal according to the specified schema. 3. Submit Proposal: Send the proposal and supporting documents to the provided email address (bando.vitality@univaq.it) by the deadline (3.03.2026). 4. Distribute Documentations: Ensure all required documentations are sent as per instructions. 5. Verify Deadline: Confirm the deadline is 3.03.2026. 6. Create Task in Todoist: Add "Research Funding Proposal - Vitality" to the Todoist task. Deadline: 3.03.2026 (as mentioned in the email) Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on any of these tasks or add more detail. --- Gent.me e gent.mi, vi informiamo che, in data 2 febbraio 2026, è stato pubblicato all'Albo ufficiale di Ateneo il Bando per il finanziamento di progetti di ricerca di Ateneo nell'ambito del progetto Vitality. Le proposte progettuali, redatte secondo l todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Aggiornamento uso fondi progetti todoist-id:: 6XwPqff8MCr394FX todoist-project:: #🏢 Admin todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-labels:: #logseqed todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Manuscript in your Reviewer Center - IEEE Software, SWSI-2026-01-0024 todoist-id:: 6fjh74qpCPV5HJ38 todoist-project:: #📜 REVIEWS todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-desc:: From: onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com Received: 2026-01-12T07:28:14Z ✉: Web Link --- Okay, here’s a synthesis of the email content, transforming it into actionable tasks for completing the task of reviewing the manuscript. I’ve focused on clarity and providing specific steps. Task Summary: Review the IEEE Software manuscript ("SWSI-2026-01-0024") for adherence to peer review guidelines, focusing on confidentiality and providing substantive feedback. Actionable Tasks & Breakdown: 1. Review Policies Understanding (Priority: High): * Action: Thoroughly read the reviewer policies document (link: [https://magazines.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/submit-your-article-for-peer-review/about-the-peer-review-process]) to understand the specific requirements for content, format, and communication. Pay close attention to the emphasis on confidentiality regarding AI-generated feedback. * Deliverable: A concise summary of key policy points – particularly concerning what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable review comments. 2. Manuscript Review & Initial Assessment (Priority: High): * Action: Begin reviewing the manuscript – specifically focusing on the sections related to the agentic system engineering context. Identify key sections: * Abstract: Ensure it accurately summarizes the manuscript's purpose and scope. * Introduction: Evaluate the relevance of the context engineering concept to the manuscript’s topic. * Methodology: Assess the methods used – are they appropriate for the context? * Results & Discussion: Confirm the results are logically supported by the methods. * Conclusion: Assess the final conclusion – is it justified and well-supported? * Deliverable: A brief (1-2 paragraph) summary of initial impressions, highlighting potential areas of concern (e.g., a lack of specific details, unclear methodology). 3. Identify Key Concerns - Confidentiality & AI Feedback (Priority: Medium): * Action: Specifically look for the sections where the reviewer emphasizes caution regarding sharing information about the manuscript with AI platforms for text generation. * Deliverable: A list of 2-3 specific concerns regarding the manuscript's use of AI-generated content, which you will need to address in your review. 4. Content Review & Feedback (Priority: High): * Action: Address the following points based on your concerns: * Referencing: Ensure all citations are accurate and properly formatted. * Specificity: Ensure claims are supported by evidence. * Context: Clarify the agentic system engineering context. Does it adequately demonstrate its significance? * AI Integration: Carefully assess the role and influence of AI. Does it feel like a supplementary tool or integral to the core work? (The reviewer’s concern about shared information is key here.) * Deliverable: Draft review comments addressing each identified concern, focusing on providing specific, constructive feedback. (Focus on the why behind your comments – not just stating the problem.) 5. Review Score Sheet & Submission (Priority: Medium): * Action: Carefully and accurately fill out the review score sheet, ensuring all sections are completed (Confidential Comments, Public Comments, and any other required fields). * Deliverable: Completed review score sheet, with all required fields filled. 6. Communication Protocol (Priority: Medium): * Action: Respond promptly to any questions from the editor or reviewer. Be professional and courteous. * Deliverable: A record of your communication attempts – noting the date, content, and outcome of each communication. 7. Final Review & Submission (Priority: Low): Once you've completed all steps, submit the manuscript for review. Important Note: Document everything – your reasoning behind the feedback, specific examples, and any changes made during the review process. This will provide a clear audit trail for future review decisions. --- Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of these tasks or provide more specific examples! --- IEEE Software, SWSI-2026-01-0024 manuscript type: SWSI: Agentic System Engineering (Sep/Oct 2026) "Context Engineering for Software Engineering Agents" 12-Jan-2026 Dear Prof. Di Ruscio: Thank you for agreeing to review the above reference manus todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Registrazione contratto Corsigani todoist-id:: 6fjWHCmHqGFFvMvF todoist-project:: #📗 Personal todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 Fwd: Decision on your submission - JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01604 todoist-id:: 6fpXr6XWhhcQWfrc todoist-project:: #📧EmailsToAnswer todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-desc:: From: disorbo@unisannio.it Received: 2026-01-20T09:03:13Z ✉: Web Link --- Here's a summary of the email content and the corresponding actionable task: Task Summary: The email is a rejection notification from the Journal of Systems and Software (JSS) for the submission "Examining Fairness Issues in Machine Learning-based Systems" (Ref. No.: JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01604). While the paper is rejected, the editor strongly advises resubmission after addressing the reviewers' detailed comments. The reviewers highlight significant areas for improvement in the manuscript's framing of fairness, integration of related work, methodological structure and detail (especially for the qualitative analysis), dataset selection justification, and the significance and implications of the results. The resubmitted paper will be treated as a new submission. Actionable Task: Task: Revise and Resubmit Paper to Journal of Systems and Software Description: The submission "Examining Fairness Issues in Machine Learning-based Systems" (Ref. No.: JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01604) has been rejected by the Journal of Systems and Software. However, the editor encourages resubmission after addressing detailed reviewer comments. Key areas for improvement include: * Framing of Fairness: Clearly define whether fairness is treated as a technical, socio-technical, or hybrid concern. * Related Work: Synthesize the literature into a coherent argument rather than an enumerative survey. * Methodology: * Present a unified methodological structure with clear workflows and transitions between phases. * Provide more detailed explanations for the qualitative coding process, including iteration, rater interaction, and reliance on LLM summaries. * Clarify the sequencing of methodological steps and ensure logical dependencies. * Justify dataset selection criteria and report exclusion numbers. * Ensure consistency between research questions and the role of LLMs. * Consider extending the dataset size if feasible through pre-screening. * Results and Discussion: * Explicitly discuss novel vs. incremental findings and align with previous empirical work. * Provide concrete examples of implications for practitioners. * Consider adding new research questions and discussions. * Clarify the rationale for using large language models. * Overall Cohesion: Improve the integration and cohesion across different methods employed in the study. Recommended Actions: 1. Thoroughly read and understand all reviewer comments. 2. Develop a detailed plan to address each comment. Categorize comments by theme (e.g., Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion) to facilitate systematic revision. 3. Rewrite sections of the manuscript based on the reviewer feedback, focusing on the identified weaknesses. 4. Prepare a comprehensive response letter detailing how each reviewer comment has been addressed. 5. Ensure the resubmitted manuscript is treated as a NEW submission but consider disclosing the original submission information and reference number. 6. Consult empirical research guidelines (e.g., Paul Ralph et al. 2020) for structuring the revised manuscript and methodology. 7. Consider creating a methodological diagram to clarify the workflow. No Deadline: The email does not specify a deadline for resubmission. --- Buongiorno a tutti, vi giro la mail ricevuta da JSS. Saluti, Andrea ---------- Forwarded message --------- Da: Journal of Systems and Software em@editorialmanager.com Date: lun 19 gen 2026 alle ore 10:59 Subject: Decision on your submission todoist-status:: ◼️
• 2026-02-06 fra le università straniere va aggiunta la Aalborg University che ha ospitato Roberta di Fonzo e con cui abbiamo alcune pubblicazioni, anche su IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics e on Industry Applications il dottorando Noman Liaqat andrà pres... todoist-id:: 6fG9FrXwcrvMxhp8 todoist-project:: #🎓 Services-PHDICT todoist-due:: 2026-02-06 todoist-desc:: Web Link todoist-labels:: #outlook365 todoist-status:: ◼️