in
wireless side). This is not statistically reliable sampling, so I
should look again
more carefully. But half-anecdotally and half-statistically: There
are *some* people
who are submitting a lot to the same conference with collaborators and/
or students,
but still it is a relatively small number of papers. Interestingly
enough also many of
those people seem to get many of those papers through (I would not
dare to say that
there is quality correlation there, but still that is what my numbers
quickly showed).
But in the conferences I did look, it was not even a close producing
the flood and
burden for the reviewers (perhaps differently: we tend to sometimes
hear in
coffee breaks complaints towards TPC like; "Why you did allow X papers
from such and
such group into the same conference?". This is issue if there has been
institutional bias,
but *if* (big if) there was a near perfect ranking, should we thus
drop better papers to
make space for wider author spread?).
I did have a discussion with some of my postdocs and students about a
week ago
(promoted by this thread), where I made a theoretical suggestion for
different
"new world orders":
* In the future for a single conference, one can submit only 1 or 2
papers from the
same group (well, author if you want). And only X papers from the same
department
are allowed.
* The conferences will be based mostly by keynote type of talks,
limited number of
"student/postdoc" papers, and very extended poster sessions (only
abstracts will
be published). None of these will have value for tenure track, but
will be taken
into account as positive signs for Ph.D. thesis. The won time is used
for faster
reviewing for journals, and focusing on long-term, high impact work.
In short, they though that I have had too much coffee or something
else. The same
arguments were obviously generated; synchronization between students,
unfairness
process of deciding who is submitting where, how to enforce things,
knowing that
if small number of schools change the rules are the others following
etc.
But I have to say that it was hilarious and thought provoking lunch
break.
-- Petri
> Hi Joe,
>
>> Before we go ahead with this suggestion, do we have any evidence it
>> would substantially change the number of submissions?
>>
>
> I will look at the statistics from a couple of conferences I was
> involved in as program co-chair. I invite others to do the same.
>
> Anecdotally speaking though, I think we all know that it is common
> for people in our community to submit multiple papers (say almost
> one with each student?) to the major conferences..
>
>> Also, how would it affect each of us who have more than 2 graduate
>> students whose work synchronizes?
>>
>
> This may be a slightly different issue, but I think we push our
> students hard to publish too many papers. It is typical for
> a fresh PhD graduate these days to have 10 publications or so!
> This has become an arms race.. I am trying to convince my students
> that they only need a couple of super good papers to graduate -
> they don't gain much from minor papers in second-tier places.
>
> Regarding the synchronization issue, some randomization always
> helps. Noone will get "injured" if instead of submitting to
> Sigcomm, submits to say Conext or Sigmetrics or Infocom or IMC or
> ICNP or Mobicom or (your favorite conference) every now and then..
>
> Constantine
>
>
>> 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-----
>
> --
> Constantine
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Constantine Dovrolis | 3346 KACB | 404-385-4205
> Associate Professor | Networking and Telecommunications Group
> College of Computing | Georgia Institute of Technology
> dovrolis@cc.gatech.edu
> http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~dovrolis/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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