[Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsorship...
Ashutosh Dutta
ad37atcaa.columbia.edu
Sat Jun 1 08:47:59 EDT 2013
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 <lachlan.and... at gmail.com>wrote:
> Greetings Joe,
>
> Thanks for designing this questionnaire. It looks useful.
>
> On 1 June 2013 04:10, Joe Touch <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 <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
> <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.
> 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