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

Not knowing to particular case, but FWIW I only noticed that many of
those papers
lately are not reviewed papers (they are in arxiv preprint servers,
and in submission).
But not knowing specifics I do not want to comment, and there are
always statistical
outliers. In any case, in those conferences I have been chair, I have
no seen general
carpet bombing from single author/co-author teams in statistically
significant level
(or perhaps I've been just lucky).

As of value. Yes, the value statements tend to come, but sometimes
with a long
time integral so we have to be careful. As an examples, what value
there was for
those funny guys (Bardeen, Shockley) working with semiconductors -- or
even better
those suspect guys Faraday and Maxwell -- just producing papers
without meaningful
transition to something useful. That said, obviously we have to be
careful that everybody
does not start their paper mill, and say "damn the 5-year transition,
I will do 100-years shop".

But in my experience, and history seems to prove it, there is a
feedback mechanism. It just
tends to be sometimes slow.

Petri

>
> I'm curious how many industry research folks are on this list and
> whether their interests are (or should be) included in the discussion.
>
> Pumping out 97 papers in one year ... and if none of it reaches (or
> will
> reach) society in a meaningful way is the classic example of why
> papers
> and citations are not generally held in the highest regard (in
> industry
> at least).
>
> Number of papers and number of citations are nice, but there should be
> an equally weighted measure of meaningful transition to something
> useful, at some point, with the tax payers' money. Something like an
> industry citation of an academic paper counts for 10 university
> citations... i.e. the idea has been found to actually be of value
> and so
> weighted more.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:59 AM
> To: Victor Walrand
> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] Improving submissions and all that...
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi, all,
>
> Victor Walrand wrote:
>> Take a look at the publication record of Prof. H. Vincent Poor's
>> from
>
>> 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?!?
>
> I took a quick look. There are many papers with otherwise disjoint
> author lists, and he appears to frequently be the last author. I'm not
> sure how to interpret these results either, though.
>
>> So are people just using his Princeton credentials to get papers
>> accepted?
>
> This presumes that his credentials are a contributing factor in
> publication. Many of his co-authors are also from Princeton, however.
>
>> Isn't it the responsibility of a co-author to at least be responsible
>> for some of the content in a paper?
>
> The IEEE doesn't have such a requirement, except vaguely in its Code
> of
> Ethics. However, it's useful to note that all authors of a paper share
> equally in all responsibilities of following republication rules and
> anti-plagiarism.
>
> Joe
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAksnwFwACgkQE5f5cImnZruCJgCeKksvNtlCbGRqNTbDgSwCBwhk
> B+YAoO3BEuyMRkVRaqU0NvGASTWYi7Z1
> =Ztgv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc