« Stocky foxy lies | Main | Oh, torture! Sorry, we thought you said, um, ‘door chair’. »

June 24, 2005

Comments

I cannot understand why FOCS sometimes donot give reasons of rejections.
For most of the conferences including stoc, soda, crypto,
you get notification with comments from reviewers.
Why focs is so different?
Just because it is superior?

The data from ACM is somewhat slanted, as it lumps together short and long papers.
(Which not how they are interpreted by anyone in the community.)
They just count the number of entries in the TOC, and then take the number of submissions from the preface.

The missing items are from years the PC chair didn't put this information in the preface.

    I cannot understand why FOCS sometimes donot give reasons of rejections. For most of the conferences including stoc, soda, crypto, you get notification with comments from reviewers. Why focs is so different? Just because it is superior?

What are you *speaking* about? Both FOCS and STOC committees put a lot of effort into giving feedback to the authors. If you did not get comments on your paper, you *should* contact the PC chair and complain loudly - this is inappropriate and everybody knows it.

Piotr Indyk

> I cannot understand why FOCS sometimes donot give reasons of rejections.
> For most of the conferences including stoc, soda, crypto,
> you get notification with comments from reviewers.
> Why focs is so different?
> Just because it is superior?

I think that it used to be the case that STOC/FOCS feedback was, to put it mildly, limited. But, in recent years, there has been a very strong effort on the side of PC chairs and members to give the authors as much feedback as possible.

Still, there is probably room for improvement. E.g., I do not see why the numerical scores are not reported to the authors. Outside of TCS, this seem to be a standard practice.

The comments to this entry are closed.