Princeton for the last 2-3 years in DBLP.
2009 --> 56 papers
2008 --> 97 papers (!!!)
2007 --> 72 papers
Is it really possible to author (or co-author) so many papers in a year?!?
And this is only what appears in DBLP. Many conferences do not list in DBLP.
So the total is anybody's guess.
So are people just using his Princeton credentials to get papers accepted?
Isn't it the responsibility of a co-author to at least be responsible for
some of the content in a paper?
-Vic
Joe/Constantine:
Do we have any statistics on the distribution of the number of papers
per author for major conferences?
In other words, are there submission tycoons exist?
I don't think it will make any substantial difference unless we have
real data to support. If data support then this might as well be one
possibility.
However, limiting submissions may have a negative impact of limiting
the number of novel scientific ideas that the scientific community
gets to review.
Sometimes, even authors do not recognize the value of their own
finding which the rest of the community might find very useful. (I am
sure most best paper award winners might have had received a surprise
e-mail about their work getting selected for the award.)
We have to also worry about the larger scientific purpose of the
entire conference process while handling the short term issue of flood
of ideas and papers. Flood of ideas must not be considered as a
problem.
Thanks
Sincerely
bsmanoj
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi, Constantine,
>
> Before we go ahead with this suggestion, do we have any evidence it
> would substantially change the number of submissions?
>
> Also, how would it affect each of us who have more than 2 graduate
> students whose work synchronizes?
>
> Joe
>
> Constantine Dovrolis wrote:
>> I like the idea of limiting the number of papers submitted
>> by an author (or co-author) to a conference.
>> The National Science Foundation in the US has enforced such
>> a limit on the number of proposals that a PI can submit to
>> a given NSF program. I think we need to do the same with conferences.
>> This simple change can go a long way:
>> 1. reduced reviewing load,
>> 2. authors will focus on quality instead of quantity,
>> 3. less paper "recycling",
>> 4. and hopefully, fewer conferences!
>>
>> How about we all agree: no more than 2 sigcomm'10 submissions
>> for any co-author?
>>
>> Constantine
>>
>>
>> Petri Mähönen wrote:
>>> Like Tony Ephremides already mentioned the quality of conference have
>>> deteriorated on average, although there are (of course) also good ones
>>> left.
>>> One could try to obviously limit the flood of the papers by
>>> introducing some constrained resource (token) algorithm into it, as
>>> mentioned in various emails:
>>>
>>> * Pay paper submission fee (non-refundable)
>>> * Limit submission to X papers by group/person/... (which allegedly
>>> could solve some *claimed* institutional bias)
>>>
>>> One could say a lot about fairness of any such solution.
>>>
>>> However, I think that generally the problem is not only that there are
>>> (just) more good papers flooding to the conferences. It is the point
>>> that there are so many
>>> bad papers, or paper that are not tackling worthwhile problems
>>> submitted into conferences. This continues to be the case as long as
>>> the conference papers
>>> are seen to be a means for career, prestige, traveling to exotic
>>> places etc. As a TPC member and chair, I can tell you that a lot of
>>> time does not go to excellent papers, there is too much time used for
>>> papers that any decent self-critique should have stopped, and of
>>> course a tough cases of borderline paper decisions.
>>>
>>> FWIW, there are also fields where (a) conference papers are not given
>>> any value in tenure track etc. games; (b) virtually all graduate
>>> students can get
>>> poster presented in the conferences (but only poster abstract is
>>> published); (c) most of the talks are given by senior people or
>>> occasionally graduate
>>> students on exceptionally interesting new findings (and again these
>>> may or may not be published in proceedings, but those are not seen as
>>> "career path
>>> papers"). One can be a lot of opinions of that approach, but at least
>>> conferences tend to be places to go to hear interesting news, good
>>> talks from senior
>>> and some younger people, and there is a lot of time for discussions
>>> (and yes, people tend to sit in the sessions and they show up).
>>>
>>> In the present competitive situation I fail to see easy way (at least
>>> on TCCC level) to solve the problem, especially by asking same time
>>> (i) fewer papers,
>>> (ii) higher quality, (iii) more conferences, (iv) less conferences,
>>> (v) total balance between TPC backgrounds, (vi) perfect reviews etc.
>>>
>>> I think it leaves also for me an opportunity to try to find a bottle
>>> of wine...and not trying to solve this NP-hard problem.
>>>
>>> Only slightly more seriously, we should also be realistic what re-
>>> engineering we can do for conferences/quality statements/etc. I think
>>> Joe has been doing
>>> a good work on this thread trying to stay his feet on ground and
>>> pointing out realities and taking into account different points of
>>> views.
>>>
>>> Petri
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I'm not picking on you, but we can't solve the problem without
>>>>> acknowledging that something has to give, namely we can either have:
>>>>> - fewer papers accepted/submitted OR
>>>>> - more conferences OR
>>>>> - larger conferences.
>>>> Clearly, we have more submissions than good reviewers, much like we
>>>> have more e-mail than time to read it. The solution is that there
>>>> must
>>>> be some constrained resource attached to submissions.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>> (i) one could limit submissions from any one author, or
>>>> (ii) one could require a certain review/submission ratio. Poor
>>>> reviewers will not be asked to review again, and will naturally stop
>>>> being able to submit papers.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> -Ari
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Tccc mailing list
>>>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tccc mailing list
>>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAksmpP0ACgkQE5f5cImnZruQIQCg8hZShzZFe01Ms0enZ8iu7m6q
> cigAmwQ2OUoBKSkmGA/oiRhkOTNmxoro
> =6hKB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
--
B. S. Manoj, Ph.D
Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of California San Diego,
CA 92093-0436, USA
Ph:+1-858-822-2564 (office)
+1-858-429-8804 (mobile)
Fax:+1-858-822-4633
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment