- I have never been able to differentiate FOCS from STOC and most people say STOC-FOCS as though it is one word. If someone else knows of a difference they had in the past, please enlighten.
- The content of both of them have changed over time. In Complexity its gone from more logic-based to more combinatorics-based. In Algorithms I expect that its changed but don't know the paradigm shift. If somone else does, please enlighten.
When I have knowledge of a paper
(e.g., I'm a co-author or proofread it carefully for
the author) that is rejected from COMPLEXITY and go
to the conference, I have one of the following
- There is NO paper here that is so obviously worse than mine that it should have been turned down and mine should have gotten in. (This is quite common.)
- There ARE papers that are obviously worse than mine and should have been turned down, and mine should have gotten in. (This is very rare.)
- By contrast, for STOC-FOCS, I usually have a hard time telling how a paper compare with ones that make it. It can be hard to compare a paper in (say) Complexity with one in (say) Algorithms.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
FOCS 2008 Call For Papers is available
FOCS call for papers is out: here and here. (These look the same but the websites I was emailed look different.)