[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mark Allman wrote:
...
> The words are what are getting us in trouble here (e.g., "workshop
> paper" even though Vern's initial note explicitly includes short papers
> From IM**C**, "tech report" which means ... well, what the hell does it
> mean?!). 

There are three different classes of publication to be considered,
separate from workshop/conference:

	1- tech report
	2- participants' proceedings
	3- archival (publicly available) proceedings

Tech reports are a strange class; for the purposes of credit
(attribution, and patents), they ARE considered publications, but for
the purposes of republication they are typically not considered.

Private participant's proceedings are a middle-ground that are hard to
classify; if they're not even available on the web, they could be argued
either way.

- --

As to workshop vs. conference, the IEEE and ACM guidelines don't talk as
much about laddering the classes as whether any document can appear in
more than one venue, and that is a matter of benefit to that venue
(again, presuming proper citation of prior publication and/or pending
submission).

Taking work-in-progress or thought-experiment from a workshop or
short-paper session at a conference to another conference once fleshed
out further seems outside the republication issue, but taking something
from one conference to another - even with 20% new material - seems odd
to me.

Joe


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEX3RjE5f5cImnZrsRAldoAJ0fsQD24hlPTycBgg8XA+a/tmMXiACeLHgh
YB+FOCbHUvfQM0UCsLyeIuo=
=9G/B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----