[Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsor...

Prof. Adam Wolisz awoatieee.org
Sat Jun 1 10:02:58 EDT 2013



 
   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
 




More information about the Tccc mailing list