On 27-Apr-13, at 12:52 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote:
I just spent an hour this week removing "last-accessed: 01-01-2012"
data from my reference list, so I could get inside a page limit.
Why? The data is (slightly) valuable, so why remove it? Page limit
is a tree-ware hangover. I blame the conference organisers.
Surprisingly, this is actually not true. In a couple of conferences
where I was the PC Chair (including ISWC), I suggested precisely
this, and the OVERWHELMING reaction was that people preferred page
limits (and not too big either). The rationale was that it would
then become "unfair" because some people would submit shorter papers
than others, and possibly be at a disadvantage. It would eventually
lead to a "race" with people submitting longer and longer papers, in
the hopes of maximizing their chances of acceptance, and put an
impossible burden on reviewers.
Perhaps this may make sense for journal publications, but it's not
such an obvious conclusion as it may look at first sight.
"This paper isn't [maximum page limit] and therefore can't be good
work or an important problem."
-rhw
