[Tccc] ComSoc techni...

Giuseppe Bianchi giuseppe.bianchiatuniroma2.it
Sun Jun 2 15:11:44 EDT 2013



 Human factor: that's why I find appealing a metric consisting in the 
number of attendants over the number of papers.  

Having 400 persons traveling to a 40-papers conference without any 
presentation to deliver is the result of years of human-judgement 
practice which at least suggests that papers presented there are useful. 
Then, you can find crappy papers everywhere, simply the probability is 
deemed to be lower that in a 300 paper conference attended by 300 
authors and nobody else.

Giuseppe.




On 02/06/2013 20:22, CCNY wrote:
> 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
>
>    
_______________________________________________
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