Search

The article provides a study of women in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields by studying published conference works and extracting names, using a bibliometric approach by using the program NamSor Applied Onomastics to define the gender of published authors. It focuses particularly on the recent six years of conferences held by Transregional Research Centre 89 Invasive Computing (CRC/Transregio 89).

The article presents blog postings on the topics of scientific papers at conferences and the problem of monitoring and paying for productivity from telecommuting computer programmers.

The article presents the author's views regarding the shift in the computer science profession from a focus on journal publications to conference publications. Topics include approaches to improve conference reviewing and management; information on the process of revision for science and engineering publications; and the different requirements for papers accepted for journal publications and conference presentations.

The article discusses relative relevant undercitation (RRU) in computer science databases including Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library (DL). According to the article, conference papers are not always as represented as journal articles in citations for reasons that include parsing technology and a traditional bias for journals. Three experiments testing computer science databases for inaccuracies are described. Tables present researched information about citations by author and database.

The article reports on research which was conducted to investigate papers which were submitted to conferences of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) between 1996 and 2009 and to evaluate trends and influences on women’s authorship of computing-conference papers. Researchers found that the number of ACM conference papers grew from 1966 to 2009. They also found that while women remain severely underrepresented in computing, there was a substantial increase in their share of papers that they published. They concluded that the increase may be due to the fact that women earned more Ph.D. degrees in computing.

The article discusses the status of research papers published by computer science (CS) conferences, as compared with those published in CS journals. Debate has occurred in relation to the proper way in which to qualify the research presented in a paper. Problems exist in determining the quality of research in various journals due to the wide array of publication opportunities available. A scale that has been created to measure the quality of conference papers in a variety of ways, such as citations and rejection rates, is discussed.

The article offers the author's comments on a proposal by the Publications Board of the Association for Computing Machinery in the U.S. to bring together conference papers and publishing of journal articles on computer science research. According to the author, linking journal publication to annual conference cycles arguably would encourage an annual cycle of submissions from authors.

The article offers the author's comments on a proposal by the Publications Board of the Association for Computing Machinery to bring together conference papers and publishing of journal articles on computer science research. According to the author, compared to journal reviewing, conference process has clear advantages that this proposal maintains.

The article focuses on a proposal by the Association for Computing Machinery's Publications Board Conferences Committee to bring together conference and journal publishing. Different methods offered by the Association to publish conference papers in journals are presented. Many computer scientists have focused on limitations of conference publishing.

The author pleads for civility from both reviewers and writers of scholarly papers in computer science. She maintains that nasty comments and the like can be reduced if writers, editors, reviewers, and all others involved in the publication process simply make it known they will not tolerate rudeness. She approvingly cites guidelines issues by the CHI (computer-human interaction) conference for papers submitted to it. The conference urges reviewers to be polite to authors and constructive with their criticisms.