Adventures of a multidimensional freak

This is Juan Julián Merelo Guervós English-language blog. He teaches computer science at the University of Granada, in southern Spain. Come back here to read about politics, technology, with a new twist

Latest comments

  • kabir singh en Riddles in Kafka on the shore
  • cyberhero en About conference poster design and defense
  • George Eliot en Blogalia in the big leagues!
  • Amber Vargas en Can spam be canned?
  • cyberhero en About conference poster design and defense
  • en About conference poster design and defense
  • Jack en Nepal next to be invaded
  • strikingly en Browser-based distibuted evolutionary computation
  • strikingly en About conference poster design and defense
  • strikingly en About conference poster design and defense
  • Blogs Out There

    Nelson Minar's Blog
    Jeremy Zawodny's Blog
    Complexes, Carlos Gershenson's blog
    IlliGAL, Genetic Algorithms blog

    Atalaya, my Spanish language blog
    Geneura@Wordpress, our research group's blog.
    My home page

    Old stories

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

    Inicio > Historias > PPSN: On quality of papers and so forth

    PPSN: On quality of papers and so forth

    img_2167.jpgIn my previous post I exposed my thought on the format, but I guess that, since Julian has also touched on it, I should refer to the quality of papers. I agree with him; in general, it's a congress where quality papers abound, including some papers that become benchmarks to be compared with. Many top-swords in the area don't wait to publish in IEEE TEC or ECJ and publish results directly in PPSN. Said that, it's also true that normally there's some bias in the selection: it's easier to find papers about Evolution Strategies, and theoretical papers, here than in some of the other conferences, and papers go more in depth. There are four reviewers, which means that only the best survive.
    However, to have a tight selection has also got some influence in that. This time the acceptance rate has been higher than usual; normally, it is lower than 50%, while it's been higher this time: 114 out of 206 submissions. That statistic is meaningless, since we don't know in advance what's been the score cut; it could have been higher than in other conferences, but it's also true that I have found at least a paper (which I won't name) that wasn't up to par, and some authors have confessed that they were quite surprised their own papers were accepted.
    It's no big deal, anyways: a small difference does not make a trend, and there were lots of good papers to attend to anyways, if you had the time and disposition. Plus they were interesting, usually trying to cater to a wide audience, instead of focusing on a very small aspect that could have interested just a very narrow group.
    I don't have anyting particularly good or bad to say about keynotes. I missed all of them, but the truth is that none of them particularly called my attention. I attended a bit of the first one, and found that it catered mainly to its own field, which probably meant that he lost most of the audience after a few slides. I heard good comments on the last one, on philogenetic tree reconstruction, from the point of view of the content and the delivery, but this is not a topic on which I have been particularly interested.
    So, in general, except for a few buts, good all around conference. Of course I'll keep atending in upcoming years, whether it is in Krakow or in Taormina.

    2019-08-26 19:20 | 0 Comment(s) | Filed in Just_A_Scientist

    Referencias (TrackBacks)

    URL de trackback de esta historia


    © 2002 - 2008 jmerelo
    Powered by Blogalia