Talk:Catch All
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 22:14, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 16:23, 8 March 2006 DonnaBaglio (Talk | contribs) Starting Comments Next diff → |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :We have shepherding for papers that make a valuable technical contribution but cannot be accepted as is. With shepherding a program committee member works with the authors to fix a problem (or problems) with the paper. Usually these problems are more an issue of presentation or writing, since there is not enough time to get new results (and the significance of new results cannot be known in advance). If the authors do not make the changes requested by the reviewers, then the shepherd can recommend rejection of the paper before the final camera-ready copy date. In order to be effective, the threat of rejection has to be real (I ultimately rejected a paper with uncooperative authors once.) Usually, about 10% of the accepted papers are conditionally accepted with shepherding. :Although some people do not like shepherding, I am a strong believer in it. Given that the ISCA proceedings is more selective than many journals, I think it makes sense to have the more active editorship that shepherding can provide. It is also a way of accepting newer and bigger ideas when the language or presentation may have otherwise not initially been up to the standards of the conference. | :We have shepherding for papers that make a valuable technical contribution but cannot be accepted as is. With shepherding a program committee member works with the authors to fix a problem (or problems) with the paper. Usually these problems are more an issue of presentation or writing, since there is not enough time to get new results (and the significance of new results cannot be known in advance). If the authors do not make the changes requested by the reviewers, then the shepherd can recommend rejection of the paper before the final camera-ready copy date. In order to be effective, the threat of rejection has to be real (I ultimately rejected a paper with uncooperative authors once.) Usually, about 10% of the accepted papers are conditionally accepted with shepherding. :Although some people do not like shepherding, I am a strong believer in it. Given that the ISCA proceedings is more selective than many journals, I think it makes sense to have the more active editorship that shepherding can provide. It is also a way of accepting newer and bigger ideas when the language or presentation may have otherwise not initially been up to the standards of the conference. | ||
| + | '''SIGITE ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | :As a community, we have been concerned about the lack of uniformity between reviewers. Thus, on more than occasion, papers that should be rejected according to one reviewer were judged to be eligible for the best paper award by others. We have therefore toyed with the idea of a potential reviewer workshop in which experienced reviewers would discuss the reviewing process. Unfortunately, we have not yet implemented this idea. | ||
| == Discussion Begins == | == Discussion Begins == | ||
Revision as of 16:23, 8 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
Below we encourage discussion on interesting ideas that were not singled out above.
SIGPLAN
- Paper submission software
- SIGPLAN provides "supported" conference management software for our major conferences (although the PC chair is free to use other software if they desire). As someone who has seen some of the homegrown systems fail in various ways (e.g., the conference submission software lost submitted papers, the software was not configured properly to block PC submitters of papers the reviews of their paper resulting in the use of an "honor" system was used, etc.), I think such software is critical to the smooth running of a conference.
- Improved latex template for conference papers.
- To provide a more uniform look to our conference proceedings and to relieve authors the burden of struggling with a poorly designed paper template, SIGPLAN commissioned the design of a new Latex template. The template has been very well received by the SIGPLAN community. I believe that it has been used by conferences not directly affiliated with SIGPLAN.
SIGARCH
- We have shepherding for papers that make a valuable technical contribution but cannot be accepted as is. With shepherding a program committee member works with the authors to fix a problem (or problems) with the paper. Usually these problems are more an issue of presentation or writing, since there is not enough time to get new results (and the significance of new results cannot be known in advance). If the authors do not make the changes requested by the reviewers, then the shepherd can recommend rejection of the paper before the final camera-ready copy date. In order to be effective, the threat of rejection has to be real (I ultimately rejected a paper with uncooperative authors once.) Usually, about 10% of the accepted papers are conditionally accepted with shepherding. :Although some people do not like shepherding, I am a strong believer in it. Given that the ISCA proceedings is more selective than many journals, I think it makes sense to have the more active editorship that shepherding can provide. It is also a way of accepting newer and bigger ideas when the language or presentation may have otherwise not initially been up to the standards of the conference.
SIGITE
- As a community, we have been concerned about the lack of uniformity between reviewers. Thus, on more than occasion, papers that should be rejected according to one reviewer were judged to be eligible for the best paper award by others. We have therefore toyed with the idea of a potential reviewer workshop in which experienced reviewers would discuss the reviewing process. Unfortunately, we have not yet implemented this idea.
