[TYPES] Two-tier reviewing process

[Kim Bruce]

I agree with Matthias that we place too much emphasis on conference submissions, and agree with those who recently have been making more of a plea for computer scientists to move more toward journal publications.  I usually tell people that conference submissions are refereed for interest (novelty, impact, etc.) and "likely correctness" -- with high variance in acceptance due to a restricted pool of referees and the time pressure.  On the other hand, journal publications are refereed with more weight on correctness (after all, these are usually the only places you get to see the details necessary to verify correctness).  We should be moving to a hybrid system where results are announced at conferences, but are only considered settled when they appear in journals (with several conference papers likely being coalesced into a more significant journal article).  I'm not saying we should move away from refereed conferences, but they should not be the be-all and end-all.

I don't know how best to get there, but it seems like a good idea to start moving in that direction.  Unless we change incentives for researchers, we will continue on the same path we are on now.

	Kim

On Jan 29, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:

> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
> 
> 
> Of course, Benjamin's and Steve's discussion about Expertise vs  
> Confidence
> indicates that we simply have way too little time to evaluate conference
> submissions fairly and robustly -- so why does this community insist on
> using this brittle and unreliable mechanism to evaluate scientific work?
> 
> -- Matthias
>