Via Dense Outliers, the SWAT'08 list of accepted papers is out.
Evidently, if your paper was rejected, it is because *I* thought it was too good for this worthless conference.
Now seriously... if you've never been on a PC, the way these things get decided is the following:
- people vote on what they want to review, by reading the author names (primarily), the titles, and maybe the abstract.
- papers get distributed, and PC members may outsource them to external reviewers. I think it is a good idea to outsource the paper, because an expert might see things that you're missing (like "the main idea appears in this other paper that is not cited"). Alas, for some papers the class of experts on the topic coincides with the list of authors.
- in addition to outsourcing the paper, you absolutely should read it yourself, to adjust the paper evaluation based on the average level of the submissions. Outsiders can easily overestimate or underestimate the level. I got comments like "this paper is crap, but it's good enough for something like SWAT" (for some terrible papers that we trashed very quickly), or "they give a better running time for an important problem using novel ideas, so I'd say it's a borderline accept" (for some of the best papers at the conference).
- after all comments get uploaded, a blogging-style discussion starts, by leaving comments for each paper. Yes, ultimately, your fortunes are decided by some sort of blogging. And no, the comments for your paper are not much better than regular comments on blog posts, though they are more polite because people are not anonymous.
![[home]](http://people.csail.mit.edu/mip/images/home.gif){kind=small}
12 comments:
What is the matter with SWAT and why are you bashing it?
This blog post says nothing specific about SWAT, except for the passing remark making fun of a stupid previous discussion about this conference.
This blog entry is really crap. It would never make it as a post at a top-tier blog like, say, Computational Complexity, but I suppose it's good enough for WebDiarios de Motocicleta. Borderline accept. :)
I really think that you should apologize for some of the things you have said on this blog. I understand that you believe what you said about SWAT, but some opinions are best not expressed (or not expressed in the way you have done). It can also be amusing to make fun of little mistakes that other people make. All this shows a hurtful spirit on your part. Perhaps you are too proud to apologize? Look out, because people might start making fun of your little mistakes. Unfortunately, it sometimes has real impact on people's lives. Remmeber the old phrase: "be nice to people on the way up; because you'll meet the same people on the way down"
Anonymous, you are saying that (1) I believe "what I said about SWAT"; and (2) I should appologize for saying it. Wouldn't it be simply immoral to appologize for saying something that you believe? Your suggestion makes me think of politicians, and I never had too much respect for them...
Perhaps part of the problem is that it is unclear what you meant. I know that different people read it quite differently.
As an analogy, the Swedish soccer league may be worthless from the point of view of Italy or Spain, yet it is important locally and serves to cultivate players that eventually make it to the top teams world wide. Thus, "worthless" depends on context, and should not always be taken literally.
Anon, I have no problem with local efforts to encourage participation in theory. In fact, such efforts are crucial to our future, and very much encouraged. I try to take part in them whenever I can.
On the other hand, I have an issue with people who are past the stage where they need to be encouraged, and are trying to pad their CV and build up a reputation (what kind, I wonder) by publishing consistently in such conferences.
"On the other hand, I have an issue with people who are past the stage where they need to be encouraged, and are trying to pad their CV and build up a reputation (what kind, I wonder) by publishing consistently in such conferences."
Hmm. Didn't you say that you participate in the SWAT committee in order to pad up your CV?
Doesn't that mean you have an issue with yourself?
Just to make things easier to find, here's where you claim you participate in the committee in part for the sake of padding up your CV: Read the first two comments for the post given at Saturday, March 1, 2008, entitled "Correctness?".
I shouldn't be responding to silly personal attacks, but who knows, maybe I reach some rational part of you... There is quite a difference between generating weak papers for 3rd tier conferences, and actually being in a PC where you're trying to prune out the irrelevant papers.
Sehr geile Sache.
Post a Comment