hoonzang's CFPs: Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

But I bet 95% of the submissions will happen the months before the
actual conference ...
Which is when you have the actual hard deadline.

Why should I submit my paper the day after the conference, adding ~1year
of delay/buffer ?
To get a preliminary reject? or a preliminary revise and resubmit?

Conference to be held on end of Aug. Then, quoting

"All final submissions to PVLDB 2011 must be received by March 1, 2011.
This includes responses to revision requests. To keep this schedule, all
papers submitted for the batches of Feb. 1 and March 1, 2011 will
receive binary accept/reject decisions; no revision requests will be
issued for those submissions."

I'll submit my work on March 1 ;)
Never on March 2nd...

On 07/23/2010 03:32 PM, Sue Moon wrote:
> A very reasonable hybrid!!!!!!!
> -Sue
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:tccc-
>> bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Constantine Dovrolis
>> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 4:36 PM
>> To: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning
>> Schulzrinne)
>>
>> folks, the databases community is taking a bold initiative this
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
>

Ciao, /\/\/\rco

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

hoonzang's CFPs

2010-07-23

Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

No comments:

About Me

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

Followers