45/139 acceptances (Congratulations, David) for a 32.3% acceptance rate. Nope, no one's getting tenure with that number :)
The list will be up shortly. Since I was on the committee, I am loathe to make specific comments about papers that I liked. Suffice it to say that I am looking forward to going to Korea.
Update (7/702): And here it is.
That makes it the second lowest acceptance rate in SoCG history [ACM]. For the ones who had their papers rejected (me included), let's wait for the reviews.
ReplyDeleteWhy blogs are cool: because the email notifying me that my paper was accepted was happily waiting in the spam folder :)
ReplyDelete-mip
Any hints as to the low number of acceptance (45) compared to say last year (54)?
ReplyDeletelet me just first say that anything I say here is my own opinion and doesn't represent that of the PC.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the low number, there was no conscious decision on numbers really. Papers were accepted based on the merits, and the number reflects the judgement of how many passed muster.
So are you saying that the number of quality CG papers is declining ?
ReplyDelete;)
Piotr
you're trying to get me into trouble, aren't you :). No, I'm not saying that. I'm just describing what happened this year
ReplyDeleteAs someone with no inside knowledge of the process, my concern before seeing the acceptances was that the difficulty of getting to the conference location would cause there to be few submissions and a correspondingly higher acceptance rate. So the lowered acceptance rate is a little surprising to me.
ReplyDeleteBut I see this number as a sign of good news for the health of the field. The committee's ability to be even more selective than past years shows that there's still a healthy rate of high-quality computational geometry research. And on the other hand the acceptance rate isn't so low as to cause the field to degenerate into fashion and cliquishness (a disease SIGGRAPH seems to have fallen into).
As someone with no inside knowledge of the process,
ReplyDeleteSay whaaa? you've never been on a CG committee ? I guess you mean that you weren't on this committee :)
Uh, right, that was badly phrased. I've chaired a past CG committee. But this year I had no inside knowledge of how much you were likely to accept, what discussions you might have had about acceptances, etc.
ReplyDeleteah yes. one thing I will say is that we need to continue our outreach efforts. I know Jeff spent a lot of time talking with people about submitting geometry papers that may not have been "traditional CG" to the conference, and we should continue to do this to increase the submissions pool.
ReplyDeleteBut I see this number as a sign of good news for the health of the field.
ReplyDeleteI don't follow. Having less papers that cut the mustard this year than last is generally a bad sign* for the field.
* though in this case it might be due to the conference being held in Korea.
Limousinenservice München deutsch
ReplyDeleteChauffeurservice Munich englisch
Flughafen/Airport Transfer München russisch
Limo Rental
Having less papers that cut the mustard this year than last is generally a bad sign
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming, perhaps without a good reason to, that the proportion of good papers among the submissions is not substantially less than previous years. Having somewhat fewer papers this year can be easily explained by the location being remote and travel funds being tight. I'm more interested in the reduced acceptance rate — that's the part I think is a good sign.
I'm more interested in the reduced acceptance rate — that's the part I think is a good sign.
ReplyDeleteYou think a lower acceptance rate is a good thing? Granted 32% is not low enough to panic, but if you consider the high degree of self-selection I think if anything its too small.
Suresh,
ReplyDeleteMay I ask what was the typical number of reviewers per paper? Are PC members allowed to submit?
And finally outreach to what communities did you think about? It reminds me of the SODA talking about inviting combinatorics (short) papers and then consistently rejecting most of them. I mean, the intention was good but the wrong expectations lead to ridiculous outcome.
Sorry for my ignorance.
Each paper gets three reviews. if necessary, a fourth reviewer might chip in, but this is not common. Reviewers might use outside reviewers to evaluate papers, so a paper can potentially get upto 6 readings.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of outreach, we have explicit connections to people in the geometry processing/graphics community. The kind of outreach I was thinking of was to individuals really, people who work on problems in geometry that are not always considered part of "CG". Metric embeddings is one such area: computational topology is another, etc..
It reminds me of the SODA talking about inviting combinatorics (short) papers and then consistently rejecting most of them.
ReplyDeleteShort papers were introduced with the intention of incrasing the number of combinatorics submissions, but as far as I recall no such increase took place. The discrete math community has pretty much ignored SODA, as discussed in the last business meeting.
http://www.flowers-shop.org
ReplyDeleteIn modern times, people have sought ways to cultivate, buy, wear, or just be around
flowers and blooming plants, partly because of their agreeable smell. Around the world,
people use flowers for a wide range of events and functions that, cumulatively,
encompass one's lifetime.
best site
ReplyDeletehttp://www.furnitures.org.in/
a Furniture,in ashley-furniture.php'Ashley Furniturs the presence of soft candle world
ashley furniture storeashley home furnituresfurniture home store ashley good by best
furniture home store austin tx ashley millenniumashley-furniture-store.Ashley Furniture
Store site.