tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post109104504307827843..comments2024-06-13T23:23:44.643-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Journal RankingsLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1091458371416672812004-08-02T09:52:00.000-05:002004-08-02T09:52:00.000-05:00TCS papers get published in a variety of journals ...TCS papers get published in a variety of journals apart from JACM, SICOMP, especially algorithms papers. Geometry papers in DCG and others, combinatorics papers in Combinatorica, graph theory journals such as J. of Combinatorial Theory A,B and Math Programming journals such as Math Programming, Math of OR etc. <br /><br />I find fairly uneven quality in the papers accepted to journals including JACM. Although the ranking is relevant for tenure committees and to feel good, people are better off juding the papers by themselves<br />objectively for what they learnt from them. <br /><br />ChandraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1091372165377770232004-08-01T09:56:00.000-05:002004-08-01T09:56:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Mahdihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12382401759237060260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1091364827277639412004-08-01T07:53:00.000-05:002004-08-01T07:53:00.000-05:00New journals can only be successful by keeping a q...New journals can only be successful by keeping a quality level with the pack. If they try to maintain a higher level to start they will alinate authors who they turn down and will struggle to survive in the long run.<br /><br />Short answers for Robi's questions: Math does a reasonable job in judging TCS papers but still they judge them from a math point of view. I'm thinking of the average paper quality of a journal--all journals (and conferences) have occasional great and lousy papers. The same ranking could have been used 20 years ago, though JACM has really improved itself by getting more selective over that time.Lance Fortnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1091351312991584312004-08-01T04:08:00.000-05:002004-08-01T04:08:00.000-05:00Lance, what is your (anticipated) ranking for the ...Lance, what is your (anticipated) ranking for the newcomers like ACM Transactions on Algorithms and Theory of Computing eJournal?Mahdihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12382401759237060260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1091088554375203502004-07-29T03:09:00.000-05:002004-07-29T03:09:00.000-05:00Lance, you completely ignore high quality mathemat...Lance, you completely ignore high quality mathematical journals. I guess your criticism about Science and alike does not apply here, as they require a rigorous. One example would be Combinatorica.<br /><br />A more general question: What underlies your ranking? Is it by the journals' best papers or by their average papers? And in what time frame, e.g., how would you consider papers published 10-20 years ago?<br /><br />Robi Krauthgamer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-1091071581046146992004-07-28T22:26:00.000-05:002004-07-28T22:26:00.000-05:00I hear there are four kinds of papers: (1) good pa...I hear there are four kinds of papers: (1) good papers that get published; (2) good papers that don't get published; (3) bad papers that get published; and (4) bad papers that don't get published.<br /><br />I've seen much of 1 and 3, and a couple of 4.Macneil Shonlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382866616548432101noreply@blogger.com