tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793521864506482882.post2582384116416751094..comments2024-02-16T09:57:48.540-08:00Comments on Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines: Journal Publication versus Conference Contribution?Lee Spectorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04340759696521975374noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793521864506482882.post-88489020135405651912009-08-28T16:02:40.060-07:002009-08-28T16:02:40.060-07:00While deadlines, as well as all the follow-up revi...While deadlines, as well as all the follow-up review process which is needed to have a work considered for publication in journals, might directly affect the publishing preferences of many computer scientists towards conferences and workshops, these factors alone don't help me to understand why the same effect does not occur in other related areas. In other words, if these were two of the primary causes behind, we would see the same happening among, say, physicists and mathematicians. Yet this does not seem to be the case. <br /><br />I sincerely believe that there is one simpler factor that could also be considered in the specific case of CS: the relative lack of maturity of the field regarding consolidated research methodologies and data analysis. Of course, working in a scientific field with less than 60 years do not help us much. We're often borrowing ideas and methodologies from other areas and, still, there's no concensus on, say, which statistical tests are more appropriate.<br /><br />So, this may perhaps explain why someone in the CS field might think that it's no use considering to fufill journal reviewers and editors' requests - who are mainly (and correctly) concerned with methodological issues - when one can bypass this process and have his results published immediately in somewhat respectful and prestigious conferences.Carlos Azevedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06185766056604349183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793521864506482882.post-89191162755858012342009-08-12T06:25:14.667-07:002009-08-12T06:25:14.667-07:00Togelius: I don't know if I'd call it magi...Togelius: I don't know if I'd call it magic, but the reviewing/editing/revision process is quite different between conferences and journals. In my experience with computer science conferences (although this varies from field to field) once a paper is accepted (often through a one-step review process that overrates safety, as pointed out by Lance Fortnow) the author can submit a final version that will be published without being reviewed further. The author may ignore reviewer comments or even add entirely new, unreviewed material. With journals the path to the initial acceptance often involves several cycles of review, revision, and reconsideration and then the final version is checked again by the editor prior to publication. Coupled with the more flexible length and review time limits that journals provide, I think this makes journals a superior forum in many respects. But of course there are many issues here -- as the linked articles attest -- and as a journal editor I am not unbiased!Lee Spectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04340759696521975374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4793521864506482882.post-61684402439859292932009-08-12T00:25:22.165-07:002009-08-12T00:25:22.165-07:00There's also the fact that people like travell...There's also the fact that people like travelling to conferences. If one could always go to a conference, regardless of having a paper accepted or not, one might choose to submit more papers to journals rather than conferences.<br /><br />This being said, I don't see a problem with our field being conference- rather than journal-centric. There's nothing magic about journals.Julian Togeliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09333191187316058782noreply@blogger.com