Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Matthew Flatt running for SIGPLAN member-at-large

I like Matthew's statement, so I want to call it out here:
As a SIGPLAN member at large, I would be a voice for those who believe that conferences have become too important relative to journals. Our conferences have taken over the prestige that other disciplines reserve for journals, so that our conferences tend toward more conservative acceptances and more complex reviewing processes (including double-blind submission and author-response periods), which work against the goal of broadcasting new research directions and ambitious new ideas. In comparison, our journal system, which offers the time and expertise needed for the careful review of enduring results, is left under-used and under-supported (especially by paper referees) despite the admirable efforts of journal editors. I have no easy fixes, nor do I think that immediate radical change is appropriate, but I think we should do all we can to nudge the balance back in favor of journals.

1 comment:

Macneil Shonle said...

I agree that author response periods are broken. It lets the reviewers be lazy and at that point they've already made up their minds anyway. The way to make it work is if it's a true back-and-forth, iterating several times.