[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Joe Touch]

Mark Allman wrote:
>> I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary"
>> work, as opposed to short, workshop, or conference.
> 
> Ah - maybe that is it.  Maybe the notion is that previously published
> preliminary work that is significantly expanded is acceptable for a
> conference.  And, the review of the conference paper will take into
> account the entire paper and not just the delta over the preliminary
> version.  (I think this is the *notion* we're all sort of talking about,
> but we're getting hung up on some of the words.)
> 
> Maybe with this we could encourage PCs to do what SIGCOMM did this year
> and ask authors for the pedigree of submissions?  E.g., "this work has
> never been published".  E.g., "the original idea was published in
> hotnet04, but has been reworked a little and analytical and experimental
> analyses have been added".  E.g., "this paper has been circulated in the
> community as ICSI tech report 45, but never published".  I thought that
> was a good idea.  The information is then explicit and known to all.

Citing one's own work is required by the ACM republication and
plagiarism rules. I agree that it is often also useful to include a
specific statement as to the pedigree in a footnote or endnote - but
that information needs to be available to the reviewers, as well as to
the readers in the final version.

Joe