Just wanted to note that actually we performed a preliminary agent-based
simulation study of individual publications policy of "Conferences vs
Journals" using publicly available peer-review data from the CS domain and
presented it at the Winter Simulation Conference 2008. The idea was based on
evaluating different strategies of researchers of publishing in Conferences
and Journals. WSC allows free distribution of the papers so you can download
a copy of the paper from my website.
It is titled "Simulation of the research process"
Best,
Muaz
"It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer."
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
http://cs.stir.ac.uk/~man
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:28:32 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning
Schulzrinne)
To: sbmoon@kaist.edu
Cc: 'Victor Bahl' <bahl@microsoft.com>, 'Mani Srivastava'
<mbs@ee.ucla.edu>, tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Message-ID: <4C48A9F0.4070800@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment