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

A paper of mine was accepted by PVLDB'10 right before the cutoff date
(i.e., will be presented at VLDB'10), after 4 rounds of revision (taking about
6 months). I like the experience since the reviewer set is stable and consistent.

As far as I can remember, there is a penalty function associated with it:

Any submission rejected or withdrawn from PVLDB is barred from
resubmission to VLDB/PVLDB for ONE YEAR.

-Jim

On Jul 23, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Sue Moon wrote:

> If I miss the March 1st deadline by a few weeks or a couple of months,
> still I'd submit and, if my paper's accepted, I'd rest gloating and happy
> for the rest of the year. Having a chance for a rebuttal would mean a lot
> and
> I'd prefer submitting before Feb 1.
> It'd be interesting to hear what PVLDB/VLDB folks will say about the
> experience after Aug 2011!
> -Sue
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:tccc-
>> bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Marco Mellia
>> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 12:22 AM
>> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> Subject: 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...
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> +-----------------------------------+
>> | Marco Mellia - Assistant Professor|
>> | Skypeid: mgmellia |
>> | Tel: +39-011-090-4173 |
>> | Cel: +39-331-6714789 | /"\ .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
>> | Politecnico di Torino | \ / . ASCII Ribbon Campaign .
>> | Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24 | X .- NO HTML/RTF in e-mail .
>> | Torino - 10129 - Italy | / \ .- NO Word docs in e-mail.
>> | http://www.telematica.polito.it | .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
>> +-----------------------------------+
>> The box said "Requires Windows 95 or Better." So I installed Linux.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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