<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Jen,<br>
<br>
I agreed with the second part but on the condition that the first part
be true, which I actually don't think<br>
is necessarily a moot point. As was pointed out, there is a wide range
of short papers out there, and <br>
I know of several workshops that are quite a bit more selective than
many conferences, so that even <br>
a short paper needs include a reasonably substantial contribution.<br>
<br>
In my mind it, therefore, really boils down to ensuring that there is a
large enough delta between the two<br>
submissions. If and when that threshold is crossed, then the paper is
eligible for consideration and should<br>
be evaluated on its own merit without penalizing it because the earlier
submission.<br>
<br>
My 2c.<br>
<br>
Roch<br>
<br>
Jennifer Rexford wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid445CECE1.8080607@cs.princeton.edu" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I think there are two issues getting mixed together a bit here, that
would be useful to split apart. First, should we require the longer
paper to be a non-trivial delta over the short paper to be considered at
a conference? Second, if the long paper is being considered, should it
be evaluated based only on the delta or on the entire body of work.
In my mind, if the long paper doesn't have a non-trivial delta (e.g.,
the addition of an evaluation section, prototype, etc.) it's unlikely to
be in serious contention at a competitive venue anyway. So, the first
question might be viewed as moot in practice. On the second question, I
think we should judge the longer paper in its own right -- i.e., giving
it credit for whatever spark of an idea that the shorter paper already
articulated. In my mind, that's the crux of the question. If we judge
the paper only on the part that differs, it discourages work that
fleshes out a clever idea, or discourages publishing the spark of the
idea in a workshop beforehand.
-- Jen
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Fred Douglis wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Vern,
I agree that this is indeed a contentious issue, and one with which many
conferences struggle, with or without a formal policy in place.
Also, your proposal to treat workshops like TRs suggests that everyone has
some uniform view of TRs. I was assuming you basically ignore TRs when
considering originality... right? I think that was more implicit than
explicit in your description, but maybe I missed it.
I come down on the side of the current SIGCOMM PC chairs, I guess. I
think a workshop paper is to a conference paper as a conference paper is
to a journal paper. Most journals won't republish a conference paper
verbatim, but expect some increment, which seems to vary depending on the
journal.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
A slightly different variant occurs when a number of workshop papers is
integrated; in that case, the contribution of the conference paper is to
put all the work in a single context. The question is whether
substantial new work needs to occur for that submission to be
considered, and whether it is the total of the work or just the new
contribution that is measured.
There is also the challenge of how to cite ones own work in a
double-blind* review process (*- though the review process is oddly
inverted here, where authors are anonymous during submission but reviews
are sometimes published with attribution afterwards, but that's another
issue). I.e., this problem is amplified by blind authorship.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I certainly think that if an author publishes at HotNets, say,
and then sends something to the annual SIGCOMM conference that is not a
"significant" improvement over the HotNets paper, then it should without
question be rejected.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The ACM and IEEE require augmentation to publish work again. The issue
is whether the augmentation needs to differentiate the submission -- the
ACM and IEEE minimum requirement, which goes beyond wordsmithing but
measures the contribution of the work as a whole -- or sufficient _on
its own_ to warrant inclusion (which seems to have been the test by a
few PCs recently).
Joe
_______________________________________________
sigcomm mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sigcomm@postel.org">sigcomm@postel.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm">http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
sigcomm mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sigcomm@postel.org">sigcomm@postel.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm">http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>