The ACM SIGCOMM 2009 technical program committee process

Authors:
Konstantina Papagiannaki;Luigi Rizzo
Affiliations:
Intel Research Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;Universita, Pisa, Italy
Venue:
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
Year:
2009

Citing 8
Cited 1

The Task of the Referee

Computer
Proceedings of the conference on Organizing Workshops, Conferences, and Symposia for Computer Systems

WOWCS'08 Proceedings of the conference on Organizing Workshops, Conferences, and Symposia for Computer Systems
Paper rating vs. paper ranking

WOWCS'08 Proceedings of the conference on Organizing Workshops, Conferences, and Symposia for Computer Systems
Thoughts on improving review quality

WOWCS'08 Proceedings of the conference on Organizing Workshops, Conferences, and Symposia for Computer Systems
Hot Crap!

WOWCS'08 Proceedings of the conference on Organizing Workshops, Conferences, and Symposia for Computer Systems
Towards a model of computer systems research

WOWCS'08 Proceedings of the conference on Organizing Workshops, Conferences, and Symposia for Computer Systems
Viewpoint: Scaling the academic publication process to internet scale

Communications of the ACM - Rural engineering development
How NOT to review a paper: the tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer

ACM SIGMOD Record

SIGCOMM: a view from the chair

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Selecting a technical program for a conference, and running the process so that decisions are well received by authors and participants, is a challenging task. We report our experience in running the SIGCOMM 2009 Technical Program Committee (TPC). The purpose of this article is to document the process that we followed, and discuss it critically. This should let authors get a better understanding of what led to the final acceptance or rejection of their work, and hopefully allow colleagues in charge of similar tasks make use of our experience.