proliferation of conferences has had a choking effect on research
discourse ... Jeannette Wing also notes in her blog
(thanks to Lixia for the pointer):
> We have successfully trained deans and provosts that, in computer
> science, papers in premier conferences count as much as or more than
> papers in journals. So, the pressure to publish in conferences is even
> that much more intense.
[Sankar, Ravi] But many are still unaware of the new conferences and their quality. This can also be extended to journals since now so many other publishers other than IEEE/ACM outlets exist which is good and bad.
This is indeed true, and it would be great if we, as a community,
de-emphasize the conferences in tenure evaluations and such. Need
to get away from the notion that worthwhile conferences must be very
selective. Why not have fewer, more inclusive, conferences,
with LESS stringent review process, and defer to journals for
more thorough reviewing ?
[Sankar, Ravi] This is the type of CHANGE I would love to see. May be in a non-ideal world it does not work. We had a discussion of journal editors, reviewers (reward for volunteering), quality and fairness few years ago. There are parallel issues in the process of journal publishing and a whole different can of worms.
How well you work is cited would be a better measure of performance (impact factor) than acceptance rate or other prestige factor?
Imagine our profession were everyone's viewpoint and work are equally accepted? What is wrong with that? Are we the only professionals determined to shoot ourselves in the foot by being selective (10% acceptance and so other 90% must be either unacceptable or out of luck) How many of us provide ratings such as fair/poor with a quick sweeping review that may be undeserving or often harsh (may that be conference review or NSF proposal). Can we be more constructive and less cynical and unbiased of other research work?
Tell me I am wrong and I will shut up.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:39:10 -0000
From: "Lei SHU" <lei.shu@live.ie>
Subject: [Tccc] CFP: Special Issue on: "Ubiquitous Deployments of Body
Sensor Networks"
To: <tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu>, <WTC.Mail@bbcr.uwaterloo.ca>
Message-ID: <BLU115-DS2C4500C05BF8F93056749EE900@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
CALL FOR PAPERS
International Journal of Autonomous and Adaptive Communications Systems
(IJAACS)
http://www.inderscience.com/browse/callpaper.php?callID=1254
Special Issue on:
"Ubiquitous Deployments of Body Sensor Networks"
The rapid growth in medical sensing technologies with low power requirements
and wireless data transmission has led to ubiquitous deployments of body
sensor networks (BSNs), i.e. networks of sensors worn on or implanted in
a person, sensing vital readings and transmitting these (wirelessly) to a
base station. Applications are often in the healthcare domain, for keeping
an eye on one?s health status or for monitoring chronic conditions (diabetes,
asthma, cardiovascular issues). This data can then be forwarded to clinicians,
carers or hospitals in real time (especially important for alerts).
In the past, existing wireless sensor networks (WSN) have been modified as
BSNs for usage in biomedical applications. However, traditional WSNs suffer
from various limitations when they are deployed in such applications, including
restricted bandwidth capabilities and limits in terms of computational power
(especially considering the amount of data that is being read, processed and
streamed or transmitted). Therefore, modified WSN frameworks alone are often
deemed to be infeasible for BSN applications, and substantial research is required
to overcome these and other limitations by taking into account the requirements
for biomedical sensing applications. As these BSNs become ubiquitous - monitoring
not just chronic conditions but a person?s everyday health - new challenges in
terms of secure communications, interoperability and device size become evident.
This special issue will publish high-quality papers that describe how various issues
in the deployment of ubiquitous body sensor networks have been addressed by
researchers and practitioners in this domain. Distinguished papers accepted and
presented at UBSN 2010, after further revisions, will also be included in the issue.
Subject Coverage:
Some of the topics that may be described include but are not limited to:
* Interoperability
o BSN systems must ensure seamless data transfer across standards such as Bluetooth
or ZigBee to encourage information exchange, plug-and-play device interaction, etc.
The definition of standards for data exchange may be required.
* Scalability
o Systems should be scalable, ensuring efficient migration for a patient or person
across networks and offering uninterrupted connectivity for those both wearing and
monitoring UBSNs.
* Privacy
o Transmission of data within UBSNs and between UBSNs and other networks must be both
secure and precise, e.g. to avoid a patient?s data being corrupted or accidentally
including another patient?s readings.
* Security
o Some consider BSN technologies as a potential threat to their privacy (or even safety),
if applications could be tampered with beyond their intended exclusive medical usage.
Social acceptance is key to UBSNs finding wider application, but extensive testing and
reviews can aid with such reassurances.
* Devices
o The sensors used in UBSNs should be light, low in complexity, have reduced form factors,
and be easily reconfigurable.
* Storage
o Storage devices are needed to facilitate remote storage and viewing of patient data via
the Internet, as well as allowing access to background processing algorithms and analysis
tools.
Important Dates
Manuscript submission deadline: 20 December, 2009
Notification of acceptance: 20 January, 2010
Submission of final revised paper: 20 March 2010
Notes for Prospective Authors
Submitted papers should not have been previously published nor be currently under
consideration for publication elsewhere. All papers are refereed through a peer review process.
A guide for authors, sample copies and other relevant information for submitting papers
are available on the Author Guidelines page.
All papers must be submitted online. To submit a paper, please go to Online Submissions of
Papers. If you experience any problems submitting your paper online, please contact
submissions@inderscience.com, describing the exact problem you experience. (Please include
in your email the title of the Special Issue, the title of the Journal and the name of the
Guest Editor).
Guest Editors:
John Breslin,
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Ireland
E-mail: john.breslin@nuigalway.ie
Min Chen,
Seoul National University, Korea
E-mail: minchen@ece.ubc.ca
Wen Ji,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Lei SHU
--
Specially Assigned Research Fellow,
EB, KSII Transactions (TIIS)
Nishio Lab., Department of Multimedia Engineering
Graduate School of Information Science and Technology
Osaka University, Japan
http://sites.google.com/site/leonleishu/
Email: lei.shu@ieee.org
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 12:21:28 -0500
From: "Sankar, Ravi" <sankar@eng.usf.edu>
Subject: [Tccc] Questions on IEEE Cost/Benefit Analysis and Fiscal
transparency
To: "tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: "sroy@u.washington.edu" <sroy@u.washington.edu>,
"j.cerone@ieee.org" <j.cerone@ieee.org>, "'m.kam@ieee.org'"
<m.kam@ieee.org>, "j.lillie@ieee.org" <j.lillie@ieee.org>, Joe Touch
<touch@ISI.EDU>
Message-ID:
<DA25159AE3245C4F9094656F663E84D25149567D@USFMAIL2.forest.usf.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear colleagues
I was to about to say this but Sumit Roy has already penned it more eloquently than I can. As he points out we had the same discussion few years ago and with large bandwidth utilized for a very healthy discussion of the same subjects including too many meetings, prohibitive and rising costs, quality etc. but nothing came about after that and we seem to be repeating again. IEEE has become "too big" for our own good. I am kind of reminded of politics in Washington that is out of touch with the general public. Why is the folks in the administrative and leadership positions keep ignoring and sweeping it under the carpet?
Just a few months ago again on the issue of "seeking ideas for membership development" turned out to be similar email bombardment from members. As in this case for every person in IEEE leadership position who is defending their costs/benefit analysis, there were 99 other rank-and-file members who were totally frustrated with the rising cost of membership fees, IEEE Xplore fees and access. My observation then was that "the underlining current seems to be the frustration towards IEEE management and the belief they are not in touch with rank-and-file members". I requested the people running for IEEE offices to address this and I am copying them again.
I am not saying that they are not justifiable but as Sumit addressed in his email there is a lack of transparency which is leading these comments and conclusions. Unless we understand better IEEE/Comsoc budgets we cannot all be in the same page before we can implement useful suggestions to improve them. The discussion of conferences also may be extended to journals and magazines.
Thank you for your attention. I hope collectively we need to call for CHANGE. I hope we do not get side tracked and lose sight of the bigger picture.
Ravi Sankar
-----------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 16:38:54 -0800 (PST)
From: sroy@u.washington.edu
Subject: [Tccc] Cost of attendance from developing countries / in
general (fwd)
To: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Message-ID:
<Pine.LNX.4.43.0912061638540.27659@hymn31.u.washington.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
All:
This conversation has reverted (deservedly IMO) to old issues - conference
pricing, the "margins" involved and how COMSOC uses any "profits" etc. The last
time there was such an outpouring was not too long ago - based on the ICC 2007
(Glasgow) registration pricing, that was deemed excessive by many, even
compared to normal US-based fees for the same conference in recent years. I
recall Roch having made the very same points then. So clearly, this (how IEEE
runs it's conferences) IS an unresolved issue. Contributing to it is one simple
over-riding fact. LACK of transparency about a) conference and b) COMSOC
budgets respectively. Most of us on the outside have no access to accurate
information to verify the claims about the budget that Joe and Celia (and other
IEEE officials) have made/are making.
1. So in the interest of public disclosure - is there a public URL we can see
COMSOC and conference budgets? As non-profits, what are the laws (at least here
in the US) re such disclosures - anyone? WOuld love to be enlightened re this.
There is no obvious link from www.comsoc.org on anything financial at a quick
glance.
If this information is difficult to obtain - should some of us proceed via
Freedom of Information (FIA) Act here in the US to obtain this ?
2. Joe - can I get you to analyze the recently concluded 2009 Globecom
registration fees (I've attached the form just FYI) and pronounce - according
to your expert insider's insight - as to what an appropriate pricing should be?
Note- $600 (limited registration) does NOT include any banquet or any other
lunches, but does include coffee breaks, and food at selected committee
meetings. Also, the approx. attendance exceeds 1000.
3. Joe, Celia - can I get a statement from you re the following which I am told
is paid from the conference budget (this falls into the category of conference
"overhead")
1. The typical # of IEEE support staff who come to the conference, how long do
they stay etc (typically for some days before and after) - i.e. the net costs
for this.
2. Other "free" attendees - such as the ComSoc Board of Governors, who I
believe get free lodging/travel and meals etc., ie. the net costs for this.
**If I am mistaken about my assumption re 1,2 above - pls. correct and provide
a link to documents that support the facts.
In general, full disclosure of all the "overhead" components (notably freebies)
of conferences would go a long way in putting real data in the hands of those
who ARE the IEEE (us) and putting "fiscal responsibility" and "greater
transparency" at the center of this issue. This state of affairs has gone on
for too long.
Sumit Roy
UWashington
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
End of Tccc Digest, Vol 81, Issue 30
************************************
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment