tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36038562.post7222039985598398197..comments2023-10-17T07:36:20.507-04:00Comments on Notes from a Sticky Wicket: A Modest Proposal: Paying to Play at ConferencesShriram Krishnamurthihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02956763366608000839noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36038562.post-24873503282906158462007-06-07T05:15:00.000-04:002007-06-07T05:15:00.000-04:00I doubt this would achieve anything except some ha...I doubt this would achieve anything except some hassle for submitters a lot of hassle for conference organizers.<BR/><BR/>Ten dollars means much less to me then the effort to write a paper, and I suspect that remains true even for the sort of submissions you intend to discourage.<BR/><BR/>One important step is to remind referees: spend the most time on the best papers. Think of the author as having earned your time by his effort to write a good paper. If the paper is woefully bad or way off topic, then the referee should have no compunction about taking little time to write a short review that says just that.<BR/><BR/>I can't see why you are worried about the cost of high-quality conference management, since you wrote CONTINUE, the best of the systems I have used. But I'll remind you that I helped SIGPLAN negotiate a bulk deal for conference management with START, so we have reasonable quality conference management available to every SIGPLAN sponsored conference (and SIGPLAN covers this cost).Philip Wadlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12009347515095774366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36038562.post-12725984821904509952007-06-07T01:44:00.000-04:002007-06-07T01:44:00.000-04:00I support the proposal! Definitely! I also am in f...I support the proposal! Definitely! I also am in favour of aspects of John's addendum of reimbursing the cost if you get accepted. You could even decide to reimburse the cost to anyone who gets above the "out-of-topic" review. This is essentially the same as a deposit to use a university facility, just to protect against people who will cause damage.Jay McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07912023932333508057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36038562.post-83412496012064684642007-06-06T21:18:00.000-04:002007-06-06T21:18:00.000-04:00The analysis of costs isn't completely accurate. S...The analysis of costs isn't completely accurate. Some venues are so happy to have accepted work that they give rewards for it -- like free registration. So for THAT person, the cost of the paper has gone from 0 to $10. <BR/><BR/>One possible solution (proposed for mathematics journals about 25 years ago, but considered too radical at the time) is to say "You pay $10 to get reviewed. If you're accepted, we knock the $10 off your registration fee." After all, as an author I *am* contributing something to your conference -- you'd be in deep trouble without me and my kind. :-)<BR/><BR/>Another problem is the disincentive that the fee would generate for students (perhaps). <BR/><BR/>By the way, the problem of "horribly off topic" or "woefully bad on the face of it" papers can be resolved, in part, by giving the program chair "executive privelege" -- the right to reject any paper on these bases. If you don't trust the chair to do that fairly, you've got a broken conference already. <BR/><BR/>The real problem with your proposal is that it examines only one side of the issue: how to arrange for less work for the committee. As a frequent committee member, I find this laudable, of course. But if there are actually lots more good submissions, then the problem is "how to create a new conference with stature similar to this one, so people can submit some papers there." Of course, if there are ENOUGH good submissions, then you must also have lots of smart people who could serve on the committee of the new conference. <BR/><BR/>I actually believe that the lack of willingness to review ("I'm so busy and important that I cannot be expected to waste my time reviewing!") is a far more serious problem. Indeed, there's something to be said for a mechanism in which...let me see:<BR/><BR/>1. Each graduate student gets 10 points from the granting authority. <BR/><BR/>2. If you review a paper, the person who asked for the review will award you some points...say, zero to three. (People who write one-line reviews get zero points, for instance.)<BR/><BR/>3. When you submit a paper, it costs you, say, 2 points. <BR/><BR/>NOW you've got enough reviewers to handle your paper load :-)<BR/><BR/>-John HughesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15976777360662701022noreply@blogger.com