I like the idea of letting conference chairs decide base on local
information only. In general, if the same set of authors submit more
than two papers for a conference, we should expect one of them to show
up, because it means they must have deliberated long enough to attend
the conference. Failing not to show up should then be seriously dealt
with. Individual papers and individual cases are a bit difficult to judge.
Waltenegus
Rui Aguiar schrieb:
> I was reading these comments, much inline with my experience, and wondering
> that we had now setup a great mechanism to distribute scientific contributions,
> but we have no mechanism in place that can aid chairs in making these
> hard decisions (e.g. by repeated patterns of failling to attend).
> Maybe it is time that we have a sort of credibility tool for authors,
> aiding chairs to take decisions on that gray area of what to do with
> a missing participant - one guy that misses one conference once by a flu, is
> not really the same that the same guy that misses all three conferences in a
> row because of repeated flu :-).
>
> OK, maybe I am too much dreaming with reputation issues these days :-)
> but it would a simple tool to associate to authors in Explorer a conference
> site that kept track if they present or not their papers in the conferences -
> just collect participation stats after the sessions (we usually do that
> anyway), and ask chairs to provide this info to a central site...
>
> Regards
>
> Rui
>
> >
> > Like Joerg I think that it is a bit of issue of a judgment and the gray
> > areas stay. We have had to
> > fact that also in SECON (Rome) and DySPAN lately.
> >
> > I would prefer to go for "soft push" for saying that in principle the
> > *authors* should present their
> > papers, and in the case of blatant and continuous violation of this
> > rule, chairs can take an action
> > (up to taking paper out of Explorer distribution). But this should be
> > done after serious violation(s).
> > In fact, the current IEEE ruling stating that papers must be presented
> > or otherwise there is
> > a possibility that chairs decide that it is not going to be in Explorer
> > was implicitly assuming that
> > the paper is presented by one of the authors. It did not come to serious
> > consideration that this
> > would not be the case.
> >
> > The gray-ish area stays, however, almost inevitably. One needs to use a
> > bit of common sense
> > and judgment to gauge how reasonable and believable the reasons for not
> > presenting are. I do
> > not necessarily have a big problem sometimes on this. For example this
> > year I was chairing
> > a session and we had simply an excellent substitute. He had been really
> > briefed into the paper,
> > was also working in the field etc. Simply a good presentation and was
> > able to answer the questions.
> > This was much more better than another case, where we had an author, who
> > was presenting
> > probably 3-5 papers written by his students, and was not able to answer
> > many of the questions
> > although being nominally the author. So if the annoyance level is
> > generated by "not able to answer
> > questions" argument (alone), then having the author does not necessarily
> > guarantee anything.
> >
> > My take on the serious violations on the game rules would be repeated
> > non-author presentations,
> > especially in the mode "we will send one person to present all 10 papers
> > from our institute". I know
> > that for many this might be a funding issue etc., but regardless these
> > are typically the problem
> > cases. Occasional covers are not, but almost an institutional strategies
> > to send only one presenter
> > for a flood of papers typically ends up to the situation what Lars was
> > describing.
> >
> > My take from 4-6 conferences I have been more deeply involved in is
> > following:
> >
> > * Few cases with very believable and good reasons: sudden illness,
> > institutional travel restrictions
> > (couple for flu epidemics, one for sudden cost reduction reasons), and I
> > think I had even one
> > surprise wedding. These people were also making a pre-contact on warning
> >
> > * More cases with no forewarning at all, and mixed bag of explanations.
> >
> > * About 3-5 cases, where I was spotting this sort of maximal number of
> > paper for minimal number
> > of presenters. Thus having only one person presenting huge number of
> > papers from the same
> > institution. One case was serious enough that I had a friendly
> > discussion with the person on trying
> > to understand a logic and to tell that this is not really what the
> > community and conferences are
> > expecting.
> >
> > -- Petri
> >
> >
> > > While I agree with the basic idea, as you say, this is a judgment
> > > call per case, under rare circumstances.
> > >
> > > We had very few (<=3) non-author presentations at WoWMoM this year;
> > > some people simply had travel bans from their institutions due to
> > > swine flu. (Now, it is an interesting question how to count travel
> > > bans due to budget; I'd say this is simply different.)
> > >
> > > So, while I basically agree with you that an author should come and
> > > make all effort to present, a gray-ish area will remain.
> > >
> > > Btw, the conference venue may also have an impact on how many people
> > > make the effort or are allowed to go. "May I go to Hawaii, I got
> > > this paper there..." may cause some raised eyebrows.
> > >
> > > It would be interesting to sample this over different conferences
> > > and venues to understand the origins of the problem.
> > >
> > > That said, I have seen repeated inquiries this year, asking me what
> > > happens if a person gets a paper accepted and cannot present. So,
> > > we probably need to take some action.
> > >
> > > Joerg
> > >
> > > Gaurav Somani wrote:
> > >
> > >> Very true. A restriction on at least one author registration should be
> > >> modified to at least one author attendee. In any case there is a problem
> > >> regarding their presence than the presentation should be directly uploaded
> > >> instead of presenting by anyone. A conference has a main motive of
> > >> discussing the issues and getting feedback on your work.
> > >>
> > >> Gaurav Somani
> > >> LNMIIT, Jaipur
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> in the past, we had problems that accepted papers didn't get presented,
> > >>> when authors would not show up at the conference. This has since been fixed,
> > >>> usually by requiring a presentation before accepted papers are published in
> > >>> the digital library.
> > >>>
> > >>> My impression at GLOBECOM this year is that roughly 1/3 of the papers are
> > >>> presented by someone other than the authors. This usually means that it is
> > >>> impossible to ask any substantial questions. Several authors actually
> > >>> directly end with a slide that says "send questions to the authors by
> > >>> email."
> > >>>
> > >>> One of the main attractions of attending a conference IMO is being able to
> > >>> interact with the authors, both in the session and during the breaks. When
> > >>> authors aren't here, that's not possible and the value of the conference is
> > >>> greatly diminished. I might as well watch a YouTube video of the talk.
> > >>>
> > >>> (I do understand that sometimes visa issues, etc. can prevent an author
> > >>> from attending a conference on short notice. But I don't believe this
> > >>> explains the large number of cases I see here.)
> > >>>
> > >>> An easy fix would be to require presentation of a paper *by an author*
> > >>> before it's published. I'm wondering what others think of this idea?
> > >>>
> > >>> Lars
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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