One of my readers broke down the STOC accepts by area. Also check out the FAQ sent with the paper comments, though I doubt "No reviewer liked my paper. How come it was accepted?" gets frequently asked.
For those authors of the 234 papers not accepted to STOC: Maybe your tastes don't match those of this committee, maybe your paper is just not STOC-worthy, or maybe life just isn't fair. In any case, don't get angry, just go update your paper with the reviewer's comments and submit your paper to a journal or another conference.
For those authors of the 234 papers not accepted to STOC: [...] maybe life just isn't fair. In any case, don't get angry, just go update your paper with the reviewer's comments and submit your paper to a journal or another conference.ReplyDelete
Good advice. In this publishing papers business you better get used to rejection. The best thing to do is learn to channel it in a positive way: make the paper better, find another perhaps more appropriate venue and resubmit.
The number of STOC submissions (312) was unuusally high, probably in part because of being at FCRC but also because the deadline was a few weeks later than usual. Moreover, the tight FCRC constraints did not allow the PC to adjust the number accepted. This year's FOCS deadline is on a fairly normal schedule so there is less time between STOC and FOCS submission deadlines than usual.ReplyDelete
All of this should mean that this time recycling rejected papers from STOC to FOCS submission should have a better chance of success than usual. Take heart.
All of this should mean that this time recycling rejected papers from STOC to FOCS submission should have a better chance of success than usual. Take heart.ReplyDelete
On the other hand authors have to contend with a steady decline in the number of accepted papers in FOCS since the early 90's.
On a different note, from my limited sample the comments from the reviewers were longer than usual. I do not know if this was by design, but it's a good step in the right direction. Here's hoping that future conferences continue to make an effort to provide more feedback to authors.ReplyDelete
speaking of alternate venues...ReplyDelete
any suggestions for a (North American) conference where I can send a paper in the satisfiability / proof complexity domain that would have been a break-through paper had not a simultaneously released paper taken off a good bit of its lustre? CCC is a long ways off, and European venues are out due to budget constraints...
How about ECCC? It's free. (If someone else has already published your result, you might as well hurry up and make it available.)ReplyDelete
The Sloan felowships were just announced.ReplyDelete
It is quite annoying (not to mention unusual) that only one theorist received a fellowship. (Congratulations to Boaz Barak!)
Er, Vladlen is a theorist too...ReplyDelete
Dimitris Achlioptas is there as well.ReplyDelete