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,