[Tccc] ComSoc technical ...
Marco Ajmone Marsan
ajmoneatpolito.it
Sat Jun 1 15:41:01 EDT 2013
so do i!
marco
Il 01/06/2013 18.16, Anthony Ephremides ha scritto:
> 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
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Ajmone Marsan
Dipartimento di Elettronica e Telecomunicazioni
Politecnico di Torino
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy
Phone: + 39 011 090 4032 - Fax: + 39 011 090 4099
Institute IMDEA Networks
Avda. del Mar Mediterraneo, 22, 28918 Leganes (Madrid), Spain
Phone: + 34 91 481 6969 - Fax: + 34 91 481 6965
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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