Re: [Tccc] Improving submissions and all that...

These types of proposals have been made repeatedly (see a recent CACM for one of them), but they are always rather short on how this would be enforced and coordinated. Would this extend to all ACM (and Usenix and IAPR and ...) conferences, too? What about local workshops? Who hands out the tokens and who keeps track? How are multiple-author papers handled?

Conferences have every incentive to attract papers (higher submission rates are good for the conference reputation, let alone paying the bills), so you'd likely end up with conferences that say "if you submit your paper here, we won't charge you review tokens!"

Again, we've been there - this is essentially a resource control problem. The non-deployment of inter-domain QoS should tell us something.

Henning

On Dec 14, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Rodney Van Meter wrote:

> If the problem is too many submissions and not enough reviewers, the solution seems simple: require all submitters to also be reviewers. They can't receive reviews on their own papers until their reviews are submitted; if they don't submit them, their papers are automatically rejected.
>
> If you're worried about review quality, either assign enough reviews to filter out noise, or assign a small group to spot-check the reviews.
>
> I doubt that the quality of the accepted papers would change dramatically; it would certainly be worth an experiment.
>
> After all, this is supposed to be *peer* review, not *superior* review...
>
> --Rod
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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