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...@ieee.org] > Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 10:01 AM > To: Ashutosh Dutta > Cc: Joe Touch; tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu; lmfee...@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...@gmail.com>wro > te: > > Greetings Joe, > > Thanks for designing this questionnaire. It looks useful. > > On 1 June 2013 04:10, Joe Touch [2]<to...@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...@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@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@lists.cs.columbia.edu > [8]https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc > > References > > 1. mailto:lachlan.and...@gmail.com > 2. mailto:to...@isi.edu > 3. mailto:to...@isi.edu > 4. http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew > 5. mailto:Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu > 6. https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc > 7. mailto:Tccc@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@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@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@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
