Friday, June 15, 2007

How to submit comments and propose new topics


  • At the bottom of the post (topic), click on COMMENTS.
  • Select one of three ways of signing:

    • If you have a gmail account, you may select the option to be identified by your user name. Otherwise, you may sign up for one.
    • Anonymous.
    • Other. This gives you the option of choosing a name under which you may post. It's a sort of labeled anonimity, so that people may refer to the 3rd comment of Herman.

  • Note: Comments are always associated with a topic. There is no direct way of commenting on a previous comment to the same topic. If it is unclear exactly what you are responding to, it is conventional to copy and paste it at the top of your comment in italics. For example:

    Herman: The rebuttal phase should help with the resolution of such controversies.
    Something about the rebuttal phase here.

  • To propose a new topic (posting) for discussion: please formulate it in an email sent to the moderator, and specify how you want it posted (anonymous or signed with your name).

9 comments:

DM said...

Why such a strange choice of venue? Why implement a forum as a blog? In particular on blogger where one can't even sign up for the comments feed: it makes it impossible to follow the discussion. How about some proper forum software, with rss/atom feeds for everything?

Anonymous said...

How about a topic on instructions to referees? Currently we simply ask referees to evaluate papers with the hope that they know what is SoCG about. It would be helpful if some of those principles were written down and periodically updated:

-What is or isn't a valid subject for SoCG submission?

-Is SoCG a conference solely about technically difficult results?

-Does it include far reaching even if not so difficult advances? (the answer to this is no for many TCS conferences).

-Is it appropriate to submit to SoCG say, a technical improvement of medium difficulty that on the other hand could change the way the computer graphics are rendered or that is inappropriate and should be submitted to a graphics conference?

-What's the policy on experimental papers?

-On application papers?

-On papers that are not very algorithmic (i.e. discrete geometry results)?

-How much literature coverage we expect? (every paper that is somewhat related should be cited at least once? only papers that have a direct bearing in the problem?)

-Should the paper include examples?

-How about appendices?

-Are omitted proofs allowed?

-What is the threshold of correctnes expected: (a) 100% correct, (b) seemingly correct?
(c) result is plausible, (d) who cares about correctness, that is what journals are for.

-What is the policy on previously claimed results with substantially incomplete proofs?

- ... many others

The answers to this questions could then be used as guidelines to referees. A result of this would be a more consistent and transparent refereeing process.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said
" How about a topic on instructions to referees? Currently we simply ask referees to evaluate papers with the hope that they know what is SoCG about. "

No.
The call for papers describes the kind of papers that are expected.

I agree it can probably be made more detailed (especially on applied/experimental papers), but I cannot agree with the above remark as it is written...

Monique Teillaud

Anonymous said...

The call for papers describes the kind of papers that are expected.

This comment illustrates the need for reviewer advice. The call of papers does no such thing. First it describes only a subset of the papers that are expected, and I quote: "Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:..."

Second, it asks for "high-quality" papers but this is left undefined. For example, is the answer to a well known open problem a high-quality result if the proof technique is simple?

Anonymous said...

About instructions to referees
Günter Rote

Dear anonymous:
For your information and reference: here are the instructions for referees that I used for SoCG 2005 when asking external people for reviews. http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/rote/socg05/SoCG-Instructions.html
Of course, most of the ideas there are stolen from similar pages from other conferences.

I prepare such a page whenever I am a member of a PC. For SoCG 2005, where I was co-chair, I announced this page to the PC, and offered them to link to it or to extract whatever they want for their own "instruction" to referees. I don't know how many PC members (if any) used this page.

There is no "best practice" in this matter. Of course it is good to offer guidelines, but people are very different and have different working styles. It is the PC members' responsibility to procure information and form an informed opinion about a certain number of papers, and, in my opinion, they are free to do it in any way they like. Some read everything themselves, others let their graduate students read the stuff and explain it to them, some disctribute everything out to external "subreferees".

Anonymous said...

This "blogger" is not the right venue?
What would be a better venue?
Which "proper" forum software?
Would it still be possible to migrate the discussion there?

For other issues, like a collection of past experience and useful information, or guidelines, yet another medium (a wiki) might be more appropriate than a discussion forum.

Günter Rote

Anonymous said...

About instructions to referees
Günter Rote

Dear anonymous:
For your information and reference: here are the instructions for referees that I used for SoCG 2005 when asking external people for reviews. http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/rote/socg05/SoCG-Instructions.html
Of course, most of the ideas there are stolen from similar pages from other conferences.

I prepare such a page whenever I am a member of a PC. For SoCG 2005, where I was co-chair, I announced this page to the PC, and offered them to link to it or to extract whatever they want for their own "instruction" to referees. I don't know how many PC members (if any) used this page.

There is no "best practice" in this matter. Of course it is good to offer guidelines, but people have different working styles. It is the PC members' responsibility to procure information and form an informed opinion about a certain number of papers, and, in my opinion, they are free to do it in any way they like. Some read everything themselves, others let their graduate students read the stuff and explain it to them, some distribute everything out to external "subreferees".

Anonymous said...

For your information and reference: here are the instructions for referees that I used for SoCG 2005?

Günter, I must commend you on the instructions. Having served in dozens of program committees I've never seen any even half as thorough. Perhaps other PC chairs will now be aware of them and adapt them to their respective conferences.

Having said that, allow me to nitpick and point out that of the categories you headlined (listed at the end of this message for your convenience) "relevance" and "relation to open problems" seem to have no naturally corresponding entry in the box score.


Categories:

-Relevance
-Foundational/conceptual contribution
-Technical development
-Relation to open problems:
-Social interest in paper:
-How will it contribute?

Anonymous said...

"Having served in dozens of program committees I've never seen any even half as thorough."

Dear anonymous,

When I served in SoCG PC or as a SoCG subreviewer, I got instructions.
This is not always the case for other conferences.

Guenter's instructions are even longer than usual, and they are also formatted in an especially clear way. I will reuse them!

Monique Teillaud