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

I agree completely. Moreover, another pernicious effect is that many
(particularly in CS) have started treating the mere fact of acceptance
in one of these hyper-selective conferences as a seal of approval that
the research is unimpeachable. When combined with research driven
by conference deadlines, and a review process that is constrained by
not only time but also by expertise of the TPC (many hyperselective
conferences also have small TPC and insistence that all papers be
personally reviews by TPC members), all that this hyper-selectivity is
encouraging is an emphasis on research that would sell well at the
expense of rigor, correctness, and high risk ideas.

In my AE/EiC role for various journals, I have often had authors of papers
which run into trouble during the more deliberative review process of
a journal complain how the reviewers or AE can give a negative review
in light of prior acceptance at Mobicom, Sensys, Infocom etc.

Another pernicious effect is all these tenure review letter requests I get
with young faculty painstakingly listing accept percentage against each
conference and workshop paper, and trying to make the case of
"journal equivalence" for those papers. Again, we are encouraging a
false equation between quality and selectivity.

Mani

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Anthony Ephremides <etony@umd.edu> wrote:
> Agree fully with Nitin.
>
> AE
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu <tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
> To: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu <tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu>
> Sent: Wed Jul 21 09:30:05 2010
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
>
> Thanks, Henning, for changing the subject to something more
> entertaining ... although I have learned to be entertained by
> reading the CFPs themselves.
>
> This "hypercriticality" that Vardi points to is something that
> bothers many of us, I am sure.
>
> At conferences, as Vardi points out the cause is the low
> number of acceptances.
> I find it rather odd that we, as a community (some parts
> of it anyway), seem to be proud that our "top" conferences
> reject most of  the submitted papers. Rather than being a
> matter of pride, I would think that this is a cause for alarm
> -- if we are really so poor at doing research, then
> valuable resources are being wasted that could be better
> spent elsewhere.
>
> - nitin
> _______________________________________________
> 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