hoerder Wrote:
> 2) Let the authors specify a preferred conference
> out of {C,EC,AC} and an alternative in case the
> paper is not rated as {C,EC,AC} quality. [...]

That's a very neat idea :-)

However, I am a bit concerned that it will lengthen the time between acceptance and presentation too much. Hence, I would like to twist it a bit:

/After/ a paper got accepted (and an author knows the grades / reviews for his paper), he can select some conferences where he would like to present his results. Actually, this may even include the "likes" from reviewers for a certain conference (see full posting of Simon for details).

The selection must follow the chronological order of the conferences. For example, if we have

PKC, EC, SAC, Cr'X, TCC X+1

in that specific year, an admissible ordering would be

EC, SAC, TCC

but not

SAC, PKC, TCC, Cr

Any conference within the given order means "I am certainly going to this conference if accepted". Any other conference may invite this author, too, but he may turn down the invitation without any negative consequence.

I think each conference should only know its own papers, but not the other choices the authors made.

Best,
Christopher



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05-Jun-2013 01:00 by cbw.

Hello,

Moving from a all-workshop & -conference-model to a journal-only-model poses some transition problems. In particular, it is no longer clear at /which/ event a paper should be presented. I aim at developing a solution for this that tries to minimize conflicts between venues and is moreover flexible for a change in the "scientific value" of such venues.
In a nutshell, we have a process with several stages:
1.) Proc/IACR accepts a paper (with some grade)
2.) A workshop/conference ("venue" from now on) would like the paper to be presented at this venue
3.) The author accepts or declines the invitation

Ad 1: This is more or less clear with the current proposal: Some papers get accepted, some rejected. At the end, we have a pool of "acceptable papers", each assigned a grade. We assume that the grade somehow reflect the quality of an accepted paper. From this pool, some venues will draw their presentations and hence build their programme

Ad 2: This is a bit more problematic now: Who decides *where* a paper can be presented? Does Eurocrypt have precedence over Asiacrypt or the other way around? TCC over PKC? What happens with "satellite venues" (currently icw - see [www.iacr.org])? Are they the last in the queue? /When/ do we need to decide? If workshop A has paper K - and three weeks later conference D comes around. Can they snap A's paper?

Hence, I suggest to go back to the old model where authors needed to self-estimate their work and hence pick an appropriate workshop they would like to submit to:

Ad 3: After a venue has invited an author, the author can accept or decline such an invitation. This has the following effects:
a) If an author accepts, he cannot present this paper at another venue
b) If an author rejects, he may not be picked for presentation anymore
(a,b) are the risk of the author.

I envision a rather short period for the author to decide - something like a week. If an author does /not/ react in this time frame, we assume a reject ("not even interested enough to answer this one eMail").


To allow the author an informed decision, he will need some information about past venues. In particular, I can think of
* lowest grade of an article that was invited for this venue
* highest grade of an article that /accepted/ this venue
* average grade of all articles that accepted this venue
This is more-or-less an impact factor - but easier to compare with the grades an author got from the Proc/IACR-reviewers.

So it becomes the same game as before: Know your research, know how good it is - and know if an invitation from PKC is the best you can expect - or if Eurocrypt may be lurking just behind the next incoming eMail.

In addition, it is flexible about the "value" of different venues: If my goal was to go to place X (and PKC takes place there), I may turn down an invitation from Crypto/Eurocrypt/Asiacrypt but accept one from PKC. And vice versa. This way, all venues need to put together an interesting programme to make sure that people come - /including/ the speakers.

If the value of a venue changes, so will the grades of the authors who go there.

It also has built-in conflict resolution: If venue X and Y want the same paper, both bid and wait how the author decides.

In addition, this also takes care of JoC-A: I think that some of these articles are in fact fine for presentation. Not the full 60 pages - but at least some. With this model, venues could also invite them; presumably with a longer talk and a restricted topic ("2.1, 2.4 & 3.1").

Last but not least, I actually /can/ think of some cases where an article is so important for area X - but at the same time so important to the community as a whole - that it will be accepted for conference A and also workshop B. But these should be really rare cases, needed special approval.

My two cents,
Christopher