1 / 10

Report on SIGMOD 2005

Report on SIGMOD 2005. DeWitt reporting for Widom. My True Feelings About Panels. What does “ PANEL ” stand for? P ain in the A **, N othing E ver L earned. Report on SIGMOD 2005. Notable Changes from past including PC Groups Reviewing Load Mandatory PC Meeting Detailed Review Form

elina
Download Presentation

Report on SIGMOD 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report on SIGMOD 2005 DeWitt reporting for Widom

  2. My True Feelings About Panels • What does “PANEL” stand for? • Pain in the A**, Nothing Ever Learned

  3. Report on SIGMOD 2005 • Notable Changes from past including • PC Groups • Reviewing Load • Mandatory PC Meeting • Detailed Review Form • Review Monitoring by PC Chair • Author Feedback • No quota on Number of Papers Accepted

  4. PC Groups • 57 PC members divided into 9 groups w. goals: • All papers in an area (e.g. XML) went to the same group • Papers balanced among groups • Higher than normal load since smaller than normal PC • Group leaders • Assigned papers to group members • About 10% of the paper assignments were to members in different groups • Monitored reviewing process, initiating and moderating discussions of controversial papers BEFORE the PC Meeting • Ran group meeting at the PC meeting

  5. PC Meeting • Mandatory attendance!!!!! • Made clear when PC invitations were extended • All 57 PC members showed up • Meeting had 3 phases: • Separate group meetings to decide on papers to rate papers as accept, possible accept, or reject (4 hours) • Group leader meeting with Widom to decide on PC papers rated “possible accept” (1 hour) • All PC meeting to decide fate of non-PC papers rated as “possible accept” (2 very long hours) • Followed by a one day symposium for young faculty to pitch their stuff

  6. Review Process • More detailed review form • Separate questions for technical correctness, depth, novelty, impact, … • 3 strong points and 3 weak points were required for each paper • Automated review monitoring by Widom for “harshly worded” reviews • Many false positives but her goal of “kinder, gentler” reviews was certainly achieved

  7. Author Feedback • Text portion of reviews returned to authors one week before PC meeting • Goals: • Minimize technical errors by reviewers • Eliminate unprofessional reviews • Authors allowed to respond (up to 4000 characters) • Minor battles between authors and Widom over whether LF characters counted!!! • Authors felt obligated to respond (about 75%)

  8. Feedback Redux • Need 2 weeks: 1 week for author to prepare feedback and 1 week for PC to digest feedback • 4000 characters too long • Authors probably not satisfied with effect of feedback on outcome of their papers • Almost certainly had a positive effect on tone of the reviews in the first place

  9. Paper Quota • Like VLDB 2004, no preset limit on how many papers would be accepted • Like most recent conferences acceptance rate ended up being 15%

  10. DeWitt’s thoughts • Best SIGMOD in years • There were no talks that I listened to that led me to think “they accepted that?” • Why? • Face-to-face PC meeting with 100% attendance • Group organization led to better decisions • Author feedback encouraged reviewers to write careful and thorough reviews • Widom is a tough taskmaster

More Related