Talk:Accepting More Papers
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 20:11, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 03:08, 3 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Starting Comments == | == Starting Comments == | ||
- | Some argue that too-high acceptance rates (e.g., 40%) don't challenge the field enough; while too-low acceptance rates (< 15%) enourage too much conservativism in program committees. Thus, as a field grow some feel the paper publishing opportunities should also grow to keep acceptance reasonable (e.g, 20-30%). | + | Some argue that too-high acceptance rates (e.g., 40%) don't challenge the field enough; while too-low acceptance rates (< 15%) enourage too much conservativism in program committees. Thus, as a field grows some feel the paper publishing opportunities should also grow to keep acceptance reasonable (e.g, 20-30%). |
Revision as of 03:08, 3 March 2006
To add your comment to this discussion, please click the + sign tab above. Like an email message, you can then contribute:
- a subject (use subject Re: FOO to continue a discussion of FOO)
- message body
- (optionally) your name.
Starting Comments
Some argue that too-high acceptance rates (e.g., 40%) don't challenge the field enough; while too-low acceptance rates (< 15%) enourage too much conservativism in program committees. Thus, as a field grows some feel the paper publishing opportunities should also grow to keep acceptance reasonable (e.g, 20-30%).
SIGPLAN
- There also seems to be a sense that the conference/journal system is broken. At least a vocal minority think that our community place too much importance on conference papers. This group thinks we need to improve the journal response rate, make journal publication meaningful, and increase the acceptance rate at conferences significantly.