[Tccc] ComSoc techni...
CCNY
habibatccny.cuny.edu
Sun Jun 2 14:24:18 EDT 2013
I disagree with your conclusion about my argument. I did not say anything
about " total subjective process". The logical conclusion of my argument is
that we cannot eliminate human experience, nor can we replace human subjective
opinion by a set of parameters and thus pass the judgement process to a
computer. There will also be a human factor which could not be quantified.
Guidelines should be treated as only guidelines. Human experience is valuable,
it could be shared but not replaced by parameters.
Prof Ibrahim Habib
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2013, at 8:06 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <h... at cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
> I see this exercise more of as the equivalent of the health grades posted
> near the restaurant door, e.g., A, B and C in New York. Lots of non-gourmet
> restaurants are graded A, but most people would probably think twice before
> eating at a C-grade restaurant.
>
> Unless you want to abandon the "technical co-sponsorship" concept for ComSoc
> or want to make this completely subjective, you need some criteria that
> indicate a minimum level of "academic hygiene".
>
> Similarly, you and other senior members of the community have no difficulty
> recommending "good" conferences for your students to submit papers to. The
> ComSoc stamp of approval is one way for others, e.g., those new to the
> community, to separate the sham conferences, of which there are obviously
> many, from the reasonable ones.
>
> As far as I can tell, the logical conclusion of your argument would be that
> ComSoc should either technically co-sponsor every conference or none, or make
> the decision completely subjectively, leaving it subject to the justifiable
> conclusion that this is an old boy's club.
>
> Henning
>
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:43 PM, CCNY wrote:
>
>> I second the opinions of some colleagues here that such attempts at
>> quantifying the "best conferences" with a set of metrics is wrong as well as
>> inutile.
>> It is tempting to design a template by which conferences could be measured
>> and thus passing the process of judging conferences to a computer. However
>> this approach is just wrong and is not the right discussion to improve the
>> overall efficacy of conferences.
>> This is not the same process by which food critics judge a restaurant by
>> factors like menu, taste, presentation, cleanliness, decor, service, and
>> others
>> Fortunately enough the process of selecting noteworthy scientific papers for
>> presentation is by far quite involved and could not be quantified by
>> straightforward simple parameters.
>> It takes years of experience and practice for one to be capable of passing a
>> thorough opinion on an event or even a paper.
>>
>> Prof Ibrahim Habib
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Marco Mellia <mel... at tlc.polito.it> wrote:
>>
>>> something like this ?
>>> http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~almeroth/conf/stats/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marco Mellia - Assistant Professor
>>> Dipartimento di Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni
>>> Politecnico di Torino
>>> Corso Duca Degli Abruzzi 24
>>> 10129 - Torino - IT
>>> Tel: +39-011-090-4173
>>> Cel: +39-331-6714789
>>> Skype: mgmellia
>>> Home page: http://www.tlc-networks.polito.it/mellia
>>>
>>> Il giorno 2Jun, 2013, alle ore 5:59 PM, Giuseppe Bianchi
>>> <giuseppe.bian... at uniroma2.it> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In replacement of "acceptance rate", once a friend tried to convince me
>>>>> about adding some factors as the absolute number of submited/accepted
>>>>> papers and the number of attendees. Perhaps he is right and acceptance
>>>>> rate just make sense if we analyze all conference context.
>>>> Loosely related to your comment, I'd definitely like to see something
>>>> like the below table, maintained by the crypto and security community,
>>>> also for networking conferences.
>>>>
>>>> http://icsd.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/staff/jianying/conference-ranking.html
>>>>
>>>> True, senior persons here around can easily "guess" what are the events
>>>> which would be at the top according to these criteria (and hence where
>>>> it is really worth to submit your best work), but having it black on
>>>> white would be quite instructive (esp. if we further account for
>>>> attendees per track).
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
>>>> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
>>>> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
>>> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
>>> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>> _______________________________________________
>> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
>> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
>> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
_______________________________________________
IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
(TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
More information about the TCCC
mailing list