[Tccc] ComSoc technical cosp...
Anthony Ephremides
etonyatumd.edu
Sat Jun 1 12:17:49 EDT 2013
I fully agree with Adam!
Anthony Ephremides
Distinguished University Professor and
Cynthia Kim Eminent Professor of
Information Technology
ECE dept and ISR
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
301-405-3641
etony(at)umd(dot) edu
-----Original Message-----
From: Prof. Adam Wolisz [mailto:a... at ieee.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:01 AM
To: Ashutosh Dutta
Cc: Joe Touch; tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu; lmfee... at sics.se
Subject: Re: [Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsorship - rating the review process
Dear All,
I might sound strange, but I just wonder:
How many conferences addressing very similar topics should ComSoc
really
support? One per week? One per month? or slightly less?
Is there not a risk of "inflation"? Sure - new events should have a
chance,
but - can we always only keep growing in numbers of events?
Many people in the community complain about the flooding... should
we start thinking how to handle this issue?
How does this community see it?
Best
adam
On 01.06.2013 14:46, Ashutosh Dutta wrote:
Lachlan, I like the idea of having separate metrics for evaluating the
continuing conferences compared to the new ones. Also, if we can find an
expedited process of approving technical ComSoc co-sponsorship for the ongoing
conferences (without compromising the quality), it would help the organizing
committee members of those conferences.
Regards
Ashutosh
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Lachlan Andrew [1]<lachlan.and... at gmail.com>wro
te:
Greetings Joe,
Thanks for designing this questionnaire. It looks useful.
On 1 June 2013 04:10, Joe Touch [2]<to... at isi.edu> wrote:
TPC meetings in person are much more effective in discussing papers than any
alternative, for the same reasons as in-person conferences.
In-person conferences are useful because they promote fruitful unplanned
conversations that can generate new ideas and they build relationships. TPC
meetings are about having a conversation on a particular topic, which may
involve careful re-reading and/or verifying facts. The latter is much more
suited to a multi-day on-line discussion than the former is.
Another difference is that discussions at in-person conferences are between
experts in the area. If all TPC members have read the paper, then I agree that
an in-person discussion is the most effective option. However in cases like
INFOCOM where the TPC meeting discussions deliberate only involve people who
were *not* reviewers (in order to "review the reviews"), I think that the
in-person meeting is less useful than a thorough on-line discussion between the
reviewers.
A third difference is that most conference last more than 10 hours, and so the
travel cost is amortized over a much more substantial event. Coming from
Australia, that travel cost is typically ~50 hours round trip (more than the
hours nominally worked in a week), and equivalent to driving an SUV ~100km each
day for an entire year. If that isn't daunting, I'll book you to give us a
seminar sometime :)
I would strongly recommend that the criterion become
"Of the three media (a) long/active on-line discussion phase (b) in-person TPC
meeting (c) remote-access TPC meeting, the conference:
E Employs all three
A Employs two out of three
D Employs 0 or 1 of the three"
On 31 May 2013 06:16, Joe Touch [3]<to... at isi.edu> wrote:
On 5/30/2013 12:47 AM, Martin Gilje Jaatun wrote:
>
The problem with acceptance rates is that they are so easy to game - and
according to this, a conference that receives 100 great papers and accepts 60
of them is worse than a conference that gets 1000 junk submissions and accepts
400 of them...
I don't agree that this can be 'gamed' on a persistent basis.
Conferences that get 100 great papers will later get 1000. It's impossible to
target a voluntary audience so directly that this happens without correction
over several events.
That is true for conferences with a broad scope such as the flagship
conferences, but not true of more specialized conferences, however high the
quality. Conversely, a poor conference may continue to attract 1000
submissions because it is known to be easy to get into.
I agree that acceptance rate is a useful metric, provided it isn't given undue
weight. For conferences that have existed a few years, a more useful metric
would be the average citations per paper over some time interval. If the IEEE
could provide a script to scrape that from Google Scholar, that would be a
great separate contribution. I'd love to be able to distinguish between the
many conferences on a new topic (IoT, smart-grid, cloud, ...) without waiting
for reputation to spread by word-of-mouth.
$0.02,
Lachlan
--
Lachlan Andrew Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA) Swinburne
University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
[4]<http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew>
Ph +61 3 9214 4837
_______________________________________________
IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
(TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
[5]Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
[6]https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
_______________________________________________
IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
(TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
[7]Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
[8]https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
References
1. mailto:lachlan.and... at gmail.com
2. mailto:to... at isi.edu
3. mailto:to... at isi.edu
4. http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew
5. mailto:Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
6. https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
7. mailto:Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
8. 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