Talk:Accepting More Papers

From Health of Conferences Committee

Revision as of 19:48, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 20:11, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	== Starting Comments ==		== Starting Comments ==
-	qqq	+	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%).
-	qqq
-	qqq	+
		+	'''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.
		+
	== Discussion Begins ==		== Discussion Begins ==

---

Revision as of 20:11, 28 February 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 grow 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.

Discussion Begins