Journal Editorial Boards
There has been a lot of discussion about the size of conference PCs and their mix, and perhaps also journal editorial boards. First let me (us?) thank the people doing the hard work on these PCs and editorial boards. Second, should we be expanding these journal editorial boards to disperse the work better? I don't usually check out journals, boards and websites, but took a quick look at:JACM (23), SICOMP (27) and TALG (26) -- all seem to have put together a fantastic set of researchers, but seem lean?
posted by metoo at 4:09 AM
5 Comments:
Lean editorial boards may not be a bad thing. The decline of TCS as a journal for algorithms and complexity (and its vast increase in pages and price) coincided precisely with its move to a much larger and more distributed editorial board.
But TCS-B continues to flourish, with a similar sized editorial board as TCS-A?
I do not know what is the ideal size of an editorial board, but I was dismayed recently when submitting a paper that there was no person in the board anywhere close to the paper subject, even though the paper subject was on a well established subfield of TCS.
Just curious, if this will not end up compromising privacy, what was the subject of the paper (at some high level of aggregation)?
what was the subject of the paper (at some high level of aggregation)?
Online algorithms. We didn't expect an "online" person per se in the board, but at least someone who had tangentially touched on the subject e.g. published the odd paper in it, or done work similar in style such as data streams. There were none to be had as far as we could ascertain.
In the end it didn't matter much, but we still felt that an editor who was more familiar with the subject would be more likely to send the paper to an appropriate referee and also be more likely to keep in check wayward referees.
Post a Comment
<< Home