[Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsorship - rating...

Anthony Ephremides etonyatumd.edu
Sun Jun 2 16:31:40 EDT 2013



 Henning has some reasonable arguments. Perhaps what is left out is the immense 
human capacity of adapting behavior to metrics. So, you want high rejection 
rates? I will submit a few hundred bogus papers that will be rejected thus 
raising the rejection rate significantly. This game has been played by deans 
who play to the US News and World report and by many others who look at the 
metrics and forget what their purpose is.
Instead, do as the ABET does. Send visiting committees to assess the sponsored 
conferences and file a report, hear the rebuttal, and make a decision.
There are many non-entirely subjective ways that can be used and will be more 
accurate.  

AE

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: CCNY [mailto:ha... at ccny.cuny.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 2:22 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsorship - rating the review process

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.htm
>>>> l
>>>> 
>>>> 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