Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Computational Complexity] 1/15/2009 12:55:00 PM

Expand Messages
    Amitabh Varshney (Graphics Faculty at UMCP) emailing me the following: Someone told me a while ago that there are some theory conferences in which members of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 15, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Amitabh Varshney (Graphics Faculty at UMCP) emailing me the following:
      Someone told me a while ago that there are some theory conferences in which members of the program committee are not allowed to submit papers. Is this really true? Does this still happen?
      My first impulse was that theory conferences largely do not allow PC mems to submit (I knew that STOC, FOCS, COMPLEXITY did not, and that COLT did). By asking people (I could not find this info on websites) I have compiled the following list. Corrections and additions are welcome. PC stands for program committee.
      1. Do not allow PC mems to submit: STOC, FOCS, ICALP, MFCS, COMPLEXITY, SODA, RANDOM, APPROX, SoCG
      2. Up to the PC: LICS
      3. Allow it but there are various restrictions: CRYPTO, EUROCRYPT, RECOMB (e.g., only two such submissions per person, or some complicated thing having to do with if students are co-authors. The exact rules change from year to year.)
      4. Allow it with no restrictions: COLT, ALT, ISMB (biocomp), WABI (biocomp) EC (electronic Commerce)
      5. My friends outside of theory tell me that allowing submissions from PC mems is the norm. Note above quote from Amitabh Varshney.
      Now some RANDOM comments on this. I can submit the comments to RANDOM unless I'm on the PC.
      1. Reason to allow it: if it is not allowed then people might decline to be on the PC.
      2. Reason to not allow it: avoid conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest.
      3. For those that do allow it, the person who submitted is not allowed to be involved in the discussion. This works pretty well especially with meeting over-the-web.
      4. From what I've seen and heard there is not a problem with the PC mems having an advantage. In fact, RECOMB explicitly says that a PC mems paper has to meet a higher standard. For other conferences this has been the de facto rule.
      5. When COLT began the area of Learning Theory was small so they allowed PC mems to submit, else there would be too small a pool of people to submit. This is no longer true, but the rules live on.
      6. The first few years of COMPLEXITY (then called STRUCTURES) the PC mems were allowed to give invited talks. This struck me as being a good way to reward the PC mems. But if they all want to do it, that is too many invited talks.
      7. In COMPLEXITY this issue has not been revisited- it is not brought up at business meetings. According toJeff Erickson's SODA BUSINESS MEETING BINGO it does come up at SODA business meetings. I've heard it also come up at SoCG business meetings.
      8. If you let PC mems submit they you can have a large PC without depleting the pool of people who can submit.
      9. I have no strong opinion on this issue. I'll leave that to the comments.

      Posted By GASARCH to Computational Complexity at 1/15/2009 12:55:00 PM
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.