will give young researchers the chance to publish.
Waltenegus
Joe Touch schrieb:
> -----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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment