31–40 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't buy the attention filter argument. No one -- and I really do mean no one -- is going to read the entire contents of the proceedings of even just one of these conferences. NeurIPS -- a single CS conference -- is more than twice the size of the Joint Math Meetings. ICRA and ICML are just as large or larger, and AAAI isn't far behind. That's just one sub-field of CS. There are so many papers coming out every yea…
What does R1 mean in this context?
1. Curation is important both for the physical limits (venues only fit a certain number of people), attention limits (attendees will usually retain only a handful of "nuggets" no matter how packed the agenda is) and interaction limits (you can't meet everyone at a large conference).
2. If the goal of a conference is not just to "stamp" research as somehow "approved", but to encourage discovery and knowledge exchange that deepens a specific area, it's important to apply that curation filter with an eye toward best advancing the goals of the conference. That means not just going for things that are okay, but those that best resonate with other presentations / attendees / research topics.
3. While the size of any one conference has to be fixed, tech has made it infinitely easier to create new conferences and journals with other focus areas. They may not start with the prestige of a larger journal, but if the papers published start to have an impact, it can catalyze an entire subfield of work.
Some conferences can be tied exclusively to "novelty" - ACM academic conferences - but others to "incremental advancements" - the bigger industry conferences in security, like Usenix Security and some to "best explaining ideas" - like Enigma.
There are new ways to find an audience for your work and create impact - that's part of the job now.
Add upvotes/downvotes to preprint servers. Weight voting power by the user’s subfield, dynamically determined by who’s upvoting them, PageRank style (so a scientist who’s mostly upvoted by others working in numerical linear algebra would have a lot of voting power on a preprint describing a novel matrix factorization scheme, and very little voting power on a preprint describing a novel thread scheduling algorithm). T…
Add upvotes/downvotes to preprint servers. Weight voting power by the user’s subfield, dynamically determined by who’s upvoting them, PageRank style (so a scientist who’s mostly upvoted by others working in numerical linear algebra would have a lot of voting power on a preprint describing a novel matrix factorization scheme, and very little voting power on a preprint describing a novel thread scheduling algorithm). T…
Haha, yeah no way anyone’s going to game that system! No way some clique recruits all of the voting power (collaborators to undergrads) to push their work through, all it takes is LeCun to simply read all papers and his vote will balance everything out!
I am a simple man. When ever I see the words "Toxic Culture" spoken by people somehere, I flee the country..
Add upvotes/downvotes to preprint servers. Weight voting power by the user’s subfield, dynamically determined by who’s upvoting them, PageRank style (so a scientist who’s mostly upvoted by others working in numerical linear algebra would have a lot of voting power on a preprint describing a novel matrix factorization scheme, and very little voting power on a preprint describing a novel thread scheduling algorithm). T…
Do we really need to turn publishing into reddit?
Add upvotes/downvotes to preprint servers. Weight voting power by the user’s subfield, dynamically determined by who’s upvoting them, PageRank style (so a scientist who’s mostly upvoted by others working in numerical linear algebra would have a lot of voting power on a preprint describing a novel matrix factorization scheme, and very little voting power on a preprint describing a novel thread scheduling algorithm). T…
Add upvotes/downvotes to preprint servers. Weight voting power by the user’s subfield, dynamically determined by who’s upvoting them, PageRank style (so a scientist who’s mostly upvoted by others working in numerical linear algebra would have a lot of voting power on a preprint describing a novel matrix factorization scheme, and very little voting power on a preprint describing a novel thread scheduling algorithm). T…
Please no. Good science is often boring; this system prioritizes hype and marketing over everything else.
Justifying these low acceptance rates as somehow prestigious is really just creating even more perverse incentives that open the academia side of Computer Science to further defunding and brain drain. If you're smart enough to rise, you'll get an offer from the private sector you simply cannot refuse. It doesn't matter if your passion is Academia, they can and will buy you out and own whatever you're working on.
This has all led to Computer Science's academia side being something one escapes rather than something you contribute too. The "cream" rising to the top is often less genius and more politically savvy with the right connections on the PC. I'm not necessarily against a selection bias towards "people skills," but to do so and continue to pretend PCs are pure meritocracy is nauseating.
It just comes back to the fact that the majority of Comp Sci PhDs have the same story: Halfway into their doctorate program they became severely disillusioned and started jockeying to just graduate and land a private sector job that essentially was just bribe money to keep them from working for the competition.