Thank you for being willing to share your thoughts on publications with us. This brief survey will cover questions related to our September 2015 CACM Editorial and the Viewpoint
articles that accompanied it. The Publications Board will be taking up this issue at its meeting on September 28, so it would be most helpful to have your input no later than September 20.
If you haven't seen the article, you can find it here
Joseph A. Konstan
Jack W. Davidson
ACM Publications Board Chairs
To keep this survey compact, we have only three pages of questions. This page is a set of fixed-answer questions about the specific policies being discussed. Next page is a place to provide open-ended responses. And the final page collects some demographics to help us understand who is responding to this survey.
First, we'll ask you about ACM's three current models, then about the proposed new model. Here is a brief summary of each model:
Extended Papers. Authors of conference papers may extend their papers (with at least 25% new content) and then submit them to journals (with a full journal review process). In some cases, conferences arrange a special journal issue and invite a set of the best papers from a conference to submit such extended versions. Arguments for this model include encouraging authors to "finish the work" incorporating additional details, analysis, and the follow-up work that results from discussion at the conference. Arguments against this model include that it results in citation splitting (later authors cite one paper or the other, not both), that many conference papers were already "finished" and are encouraged to dilute themselves with extra content that is not valuable, and the additional lag time from initial research to final publication.
Journal-First. In this model, authors submit directly to a journal, and papers that are accepted to the journal by a certain cut-off date are invited to also present the work at a leading conference. Some conferences use this model as a way to expose their attendees to the work published in journals. A few have abandoned regular submission/review and rely entirely on journal papers for their content. Arguments for this model include the full-quality journal review process and the single complete paper that results. Arguments against this model include concerns about scaling to large communities and concerns about losing the benefits of conference program committees. An example of this model is the TACO/HiPEAC arrangement.
Journal-Integrated. This model involves an agreement between a conference and a journal to have a conference review process that meets the standards of the journal's process (including requirements about number and quality of reviews, ability to monitor revisions), and that has a method to hand-off major revisions into the journal's process so that conference papers can iterate through multiple revisions as needed to improve to publication-quality. Arguments for this model include leveraging the existing conference program committees while streamlining transitions to journals. Arguments against this model are the risk of swamping journals with conference submissions (over other submissions) and concern over whether editors can actually exercise sufficient oversight over the conference review process and quality. An example using this model is SIGGRAPH / TOG.