year at VLDB'11. Plz take a look at their review process:
http://www.vldb.org/2011/SubmissionGuidelines.htm
they don't solve all problems of our current conference review
process obviously, but they take some radical steps
to move away from the "deadline-driven research" mode that we all
(in CS) follow today. Their method is a very good hybrid, IMO,
between conferences and journals, combining the best of both worlds.
I hope that some bold networking conferences will follow, and
improve, this paradigm.
Constantine
On 7/23/2010 2:50 AM, Sue Moon wrote:
> Definitely something we the community should give some thoughts on.
> If the conference-centered publication practice is just an artifact of
> how things have been done in our field and buys not much more,
> then we should seriously think about morphing the practice to journals.
>
> Some pluses about the conf-centered style.
> - Workshops draw attention to a new rising field
> and offers an opportunity for people to gather and discuss.
> Creating a journal in a very agile manner would be hard.
> - I can follow what's happening in the field by checking out
> a few top conference proceedings.
> A few minuses:
> - Artificial constraint on when we publish
> - No chance for a rebuttal, especially to a review that's unfair or
> in some cases wrong or flawed
> - Extra travel overhead for TPC meetings (not green!!)
> - Much delay in publication, especially when authors target
> premium conferences with low acceptance ratios.
> - Those who can stay up the night before a deadline have advantage.
> (Yeah you should not work only the night before, but we're all human
> and there's always some last-minute improvement one can do.
> Particularly challenging as we grow old.)
>
> How to morph to journals? One idea is for conferences to find a journal
> to align with and then become a special issue. The review process
> should be negotiated. Then do we still hold the conference?
> Get rid of the conference itself? Merge a few to a big one?
> We'll need much discussion for sure.
>
> -Sue
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@isi.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 5:29 AM
>> To: sbmoon@kaist.edu
>> Cc: 'Victor Bahl'; 'Mani Srivastava'; tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning
>> Schulzrinne)
>>
>> Hi, Sue (et al.),
>>
>> On 7/22/2010 1:07 AM, Sue Moon wrote:
>> ...
>>> Conference or journal, if we could make sure that reviews are done well,
>>> why should it matter?
>>
>> In a word, tenure (replace with whatever review process you prefer).
>>
>> We're all reviewed in various ways. Asserting that "networking is
>> different", vs. other fields (either within CS, across engineering, or
>> throughout other disciplines) doesn't cut it.
>>
>> IMO, we need to determine whether there's something about our work that
>> truly is unique and warrants<10% conference accept rates and long
>> review timelines - and make that case on its own merit (not just "that's
>> how it's always been"), or we should *adapt* to the common modes of
>> scientific discourse.
>>
>> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
--
Constantine
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constantine Dovrolis, Associate Professor
College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology
3346 KACB, 404-385-4205, 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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment