[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Joe Touch]

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

Vern Paxson wrote:
>> But, you noted that we're talking about "workshop papers", Vern used the
>> term "short papers".  How do we treat an IMC 6-pager?  It's short, but
>> it's from a conference.  What to do?  How about a 10 page paper from the
>> foobar workshop?  It's getting long-ish, but it's from a workshop.
>> These words ("conference", "workshop", "tech report", etc.) are so
>> overloaded that it seems to me we ought to just say what we mean (e.g.,
>> "a refereed paper with <= 6 pages" or whatever).
> 
> A note I received privately today (forwarded with permission):
> 
> 	A borderline issue is how to treat papers published in the Allerton
> 	conference, which are 12 pages.  Many people consider Allerton a
> 	venue for rapid publication of early results, but it doesn't meet
> 	the "short paper" definition.  I don't know what we should do about
> 	those, but the community should have some clear guidance about
> 	what to expect.

Allerton has two classes of papers - full and short, where only short
papers solicit preliminary results. The word "early" doesn't appear in
the CFP (at least a few years of which I checked).

It's sufficiently obscure (IMO) that republication in a broader venue
should be considered appropriate as well, just as would papers sent to a
regional conference.

> which (again) points out that framing a good line to draw is tricky.
> 
> I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary" work,
> as opposed to short, workshop, or conference.

Either preliminary or focused on a sub-problem, but with the exception
that's already allowed for broader venues.

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

iD8DBQFEX4T2E5f5cImnZrsRAqyHAKDkqBvDbAe3lbCb1OJ76m+mKQPyfACeITMC
L4JLGPbn9PAinBkcbq2pq5Y=
=6Np6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----