tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post8881878164865187344..comments2024-03-27T19:58:17.387-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: What is a `previous publication'?Lance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-43889819726412414402016-02-23T18:25:15.090-06:002016-02-23T18:25:15.090-06:00What purpose does STOC/FOCS serve anymore?What purpose does STOC/FOCS serve anymore?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-11682477133087416562016-02-23T07:09:07.284-06:002016-02-23T07:09:07.284-06:00My post was raising the issue that you stated more...My post was raising the issue that you stated more eloquently:<br />Since STOC/FOCS are NO LONGER the mechanism by which papers go public (QUESTION- when did that STOP being the case? arXiv? email?) do we need to change policies? change how we judge papers on program committees?<br /><br />This is not quite a new issue. I have heard of papers that<br />appeared in unrefereed workshops that were therefore turned down from conferences since they were not ``new'' anymore.<br /><br />So while YOU realize that STOC/FOCS (and other conferences) are<br />no longer the mechanism through which authors publicize papers, there are those on program committees that are not similarly enlightened. <br />GASARCHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06134382469361359081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-48890560578558851602016-02-23T01:09:33.413-06:002016-02-23T01:09:33.413-06:00In such cases, it's best to explicitly state (...In such cases, it's best to explicitly state (eg in a footnote to the title) that paper B replaces and subsumes the paper A. On most PCs that I've been on, if such a statement is present, then they will not treat A as previous work. Of course, this does not work with double-blind reviewing. It would be unfortunate if fears of such situations slowed the dissemination of research in our community.Salil Vadhanhttp://seas.harvard.edu/~salilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-55039738723744729612016-02-22T23:02:16.123-06:002016-02-22T23:02:16.123-06:00There is an exemption for one or two Science/Natur...There is an exemption for one or two Science/Nature papers that could not be pre-published in STOC/FOCS because of the policies of Science and Nature.<br /><br />Jelani, if you write in a footnote "* This is an expanded version of the preprint appearing as arXiv: ..." then there is no confusion.<br /><br />Bill: What is the point of this post? It seems to suggest that STOC/FOCS is the main mechanism through which its authors publicize their papers, and therefore if a paper is already public, it should not be in the conference. That is not currently the role of the two conferences by any stretch of the imagination.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05011711575259782857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-81264656025806464302016-02-22T18:04:36.569-06:002016-02-22T18:04:36.569-06:00You did publish it. To arXiv.
Also, was the re...You did publish it. To arXiv. <br /><br />Also, was the review "blind" (in which case your paper could have been seen by the reviewers as incremental over the work of others).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-46220974917560502512016-02-22T16:27:42.666-06:002016-02-22T16:27:42.666-06:00It is strange that there is an exemption to simult...It is strange that there is an exemption to simultaneous publication for Nature/Science. Why is that ok? Does it even ever come up? Nature/Science papers cover pretty disjoint material from STOC/FOCS papers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-40800104034063905232016-02-22T09:15:30.319-06:002016-02-22T09:15:30.319-06:00I've been in a similar-sounding situation: me ...I've been in a similar-sounding situation: me and co-author put A on arXiv then got a better result B then submitted B to a conference (which was supposed to "replace" the unpublished A, i.e. seen as a new version). We got a negative review that it was incremental over A, which we had no intention of ever publishing.Jelani Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216475103758212305noreply@blogger.com