[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Joe Touch]

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

Mark Allman wrote:
>> but taking something from one conference to another - even with 20%
>> new material - seems odd to me.
> 
> I agree.  Seems odd to me, too.  But, what's the magic that makes it
> odd?  The labeling of something a "workshop" or a "conference"?
> Probably that is it.  But, if there is 30% more in a paper from a
> "workshop" what makes that different from 30% more from a paper at a
> "conference"?
> 
> allman

The magic depends on the 20% that's added OR the venue.

If it was work in progress and added confirming results, then it seems
OK. But to add a second round of confirming results doesn't. I.e., the
additional material needs to take the result from preliminary to
confirmed, or from specific to general (in the case of integration).

As to venue, if the first venue was a workshop and this is a general
conference - and the result is of general interest, then it seems OK as
well. Taking a Sigcomm white paper (when we had them, but which seem
less needed with the workshops there) and publishing it later at IMC
seems OK, as does the converse.

But taking a regular IMC paper and sending it to Sigcomm doesn't - the
next hop ought to be ToN, JSAC, ComNet, etc. Even when IMC was IMW, the
paper length and extent was that of a conference, not a workshop, so
this seems like republication - which is allowed only when the chairs
deem appropriate, not as a general rule.

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

iD8DBQFEX3vPE5f5cImnZrsRAgpWAKC6VTtnYYdejEv/sEpuoCjfo7Qr9wCeIjaF
fUMovTbvHVotlEesHt4mJNI=
=fY9z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----