[TYPES] Two-tier reviewing process

[Alan Schmitt]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Kim Bruce <kim at cs.pomona.edu> wrote:
> [ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
>
> 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.

Unfortunately journals often require new results. I have tried several
times to published coalesced papers with proofs, and invariably I was
asked where was the new, unpublished result. But maybe I was unlucky.

Alan