Wednesday, July 21, 2010

ICS 2011: A Question

There has been a lot of discussions about ICS --- Innovations in (Theoretical?) Computer Science --- conference, some pre-conference aspirations, post mortem analyses and the buzz of the sequel.

I noticed from CFP of ICS 2010 that "There will be printed proceedings, distributed at the conference, and thereafter available for purchase from Tsinghua University Press." The proceedings don't seem to have an ISBN or equivalent, papers are not yet indexed by DBLP or equivalent, and how long will this conference will continue? Some of these concerns can be fixed, but the question is, should ICS papers be considered on par with archival conferences (misnomer?) like FOCS/STOC/SODA/.. and listed in one's CV along with them? There is a spectrum of conferences from ones sponsored by associations like IEEE/ACM/SIAM to say competitive workshops by a committed group of researchers finding their publishing means to workshops with carefully chosen invited speakers with published talks/papers, to others. I can't tell where ICS lies in this spectrum. Now, do I, should I care? Only to the extent that this seems like an interesting issue to understand.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

ICS'2010 is not on DBLP, but also SODA'2010 is not there yet.

3:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ISBN of ICS 2010 proceedings:

It's ISBN from the CD; perhaps the book has different ISBN, don't know.

3:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice: ISBN is valuable (amazon and ISBN search does not find it, but it is possible I need to remove -'s and take a suitable prefix).

DBLP is easy to get updated.

-- Metoo

7:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If getting stuff into DBLP is so easy, then why is SODA 2010 not there...who should be emailed about it?

12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

- Metoo

12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wondered the same thing about theory of computing.

They seem to haven an ISSN but what about DBLP?

2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it is possible to update DBLP individually: i.e., not just a single paper, but a whole conference. E.g., ICS'2010. But that takes time.

3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My copy of ICS proceedings has ISBN 978-7-302-21752-7
But I doubt if you could purchase the proceedings in the US.

1:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why are people so concerned with papers getting included to DBLP and their DBLP count? I find this particularly crazy since unrefereed papers uploaded on arxiv also show up in DBLP. so now a common practice to bump DBLP count is to arxiv as well as get it published in a conference - 2 entries for one paper! The practice of arxiving is good and so is the practice of publishing in conferences (and journals), but measuring the DBLP count is weird.

6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DBLP is a useful mean of accessing papers (co-)authored by a given person. It has nothing to do with counting (at least not to me); it's just a convinience.

9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I find this particularly crazy since unrefereed papers uploaded on arxiv also show up in DBLP"

Contrast this with the fact that DBLP does a pretty lousy job of indexing papers published at USENIX-sponsored conferences (most of which are better than several crappy conferences sponsored by ACM and IEEE).

6:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Anons:

Will be good to help DBLP extend their coverage, including eg USENIX conferences. I am sure Michael can use volunteers. Hannah Bast did some of the faceted search for DBLP which was useful.

Yes, DBLP count is a silly thing to care about. I find DBLP useful as an easy place to find a list of papers by a researcher and navigate via conf/coauthor links.

-- Metoo

2:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home