[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