Human factor: that's why I find appealing a metric consisting in the number of attendants over the number of papers.
Having 400 persons traveling to a 40-papers conference without any presentation to deliver is the result of years of human-judgement practice which at least suggests that papers presented there are useful. Then, you can find crappy papers everywhere, simply the probability is deemed to be lower that in a 300 paper conference attended by 300 authors and nobody else. Giuseppe. On 02/06/2013 20:22, CCNY wrote: > 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...@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...@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...@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.html >>>>> >>>>> 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@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 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
