• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Olivier Danvy - Friday Lecture - May 2010
 

Olivier Danvy - Friday Lecture - May 2010

on

  • 2,645 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,645
Views on SlideShare
2,584
Embed Views
61

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 61

http://cs.au.dk 61

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Olivier Danvy - Friday Lecture - May 2010 Olivier Danvy - Friday Lecture - May 2010 Document Transcript

    • Peer-reviewed scientific journals Olivier Danvy Department of Computer Science Aarhus University Aarhus Friday 7 May 2010 1 Science A scientific result must be independently verifiable. 2
    • Reviewing The process of independent verification. 3 A peer Another scientist. 4
    • A journal An archival publication forum. 5 Peer-reviewed scientific journals Olivier Danvy Department of Computer Science Aarhus University Aarhus Friday 7 May 2010 6
    • Plan 1. Peer-reviewed scientific journals. 2. A first-person experience report. 7 Origins As pointed out by Jens-Christian Djurhuus: • Ludvig Holberg (1750): peer-reviewing is “the cause of scientific progress.” • From the Royal Society (1660) to the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters (1742). 8
    • Challenges • the exponential growth of educated scientists • a profitable business 9 The publication cycle (1/2) • submission of the initial report of a result • assessment of appropriateness • selection of reviewers • reviewing • editorial decision • feedback to the author 10
    • The publication cycle (2/2) Possible outcomes: • acceptation • acceptation conditionally to some revision • request for revision and resubmission • outright rejection 11 The submission Which kind of article? (cf. Parberry’s advice) 12
    • Appropriateness? Up to the editor(s) in chief. 13 Which reviewers? Tension: • competence • availability And also: • the candid reviewer • the conflicts of interest 14
    • The reviewing process • can take time • editorial backup plans 15 Editorial decision • assessment • feedback to the reviewers, possibly • outcome 16
    • Feedback to the author • acceptation • acceptation conditionally to some revision • request for revision and resubmission • outright rejection 17 So, a good journal • publishes good papers, and • reviews them quickly. Plus, hey, bibliometrics. 18
    • Jens Palsberg on scientific journals “I hold these truths to be self-evident, • that authors of a good paper deserve a thorough and helpful review of their work while authors of a bad paper deserve to be told quickly that the journal is an inappropriate venue for their work, 19 • that reviewers deserve to spend most of their time on good papers, and • that readers deserve a journal with papers that the review process has greatly improved.” 20
    • Where to publish? • in open journals (eg, lmcs-online.org) • in associative organizations (ACM, IEEE) • in private publishers (Springer, etc.) But what about the copyright? 21 The copyright issue It is overblown: In practice, the publishers only copyright one watermarked pdf file. So: feel free to put the extended version on your web page. 22
    • On open access • commercial publishers (the rich get richer) • non-commercial publishers 23 Plan √ 1. Peer-reviewed scientific journals. 2. A first-person experience report. 24
    • Lisp and Symbolic Computation • founded in 1987 by Dick Gabriel and Guy Steele • renamed in 1998 by Carolyn Talcott and myself Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation 25 A niche journal λ 26
    • • The Mystery of the Tower Revealed • Mix: A Self-Applicable Partial Evaluator • Runtime Tags Aren’t Necessary • SELF: The Power of Simplicity • Callee-Save Registers in CPS • Syntactic Abstraction in Scheme • The Discoveries of Continuations 27 • The Next 700 Formal Language Descriptions • Polymorphic Type Assignment and CPS • Recursion from Iteration • Monads and Composable Continuations • Call-by-Need and Continuation-Passing Style • VLISP among many others. 28
    • My progression • reader • author and reviewer • associate editor • co-EiC 29 Guidelines • Claude Bishop: How to edit a scientific journal • Andrew Appel: How to edit a scientific journal by e-mail 30
    • Claude Bishop’s checklist • have a record of published research • be currently active in research • be reasonably well organized • have tact, diplomacy, and good judgment • have a sense of humor • be at an appropriate stage of their careers 31 Ah, the power • cool special issues (Strachey, Landin, etc., and partial evaluation, continuations, etc.) • cool papers (Consel, Dybvig, Feeley, Futamu- ra, Goldberg, Jagannathan, Henderson, Leroy, Krivine, Morris, Queinnec, Reppy, Reps, Reynolds, Steele, Sussman, Wand, etc.) • editorials galore 32
    • Christopher Strachey • the idea and the opportunity • the realization (e.g., Penrose) • the marketing • the impact (e.g., Scott, Dijkstra) 33 Ah, the responsabilities • “I am up for tenure soon!” • This submission just does not cut it. 34
    • The eternal battle • authors • copy-editors 35 Example: Growing a Language “This is the text of a talk that I gave one day last fall, in the tenth month of the year. I have fixed a few bugs here and there and changed a phrase or two to make my thoughts more clear.” ...a booby trap for copy-editors. 36
    • The way out • a lot of diplomacy (“they think they know what they are doing, e.g., having formatted their PhD dissertation themselves”) • the actual style files: what you write is what people will read 37 Managing egos • authors • reviewers 38
    • Useful reviews 1. summary 2. analysis 3. overall recommendation 4. misc. 39 Editorial efficiency • Reusing (or not) reviews of previous versions of the submission. • The other co-Editor in Chief. • The Associate Editors. • The Advisory Board. 40
    • Two recommendations for authors 1. Submit short papers: the shorter the submission, the quicker it is reviewed. 2. When you are asked to review a submission, just say yes. 41 Editing: the ultimate charity work • once upon a time in Western Jutland • editors are taken for granted 42
    • The future • of scientific journals • of editors 43 Reference Eric Norden’s hilarious short story: “The Curse of the Mhondoro Nkabele” in, e.g., Mike Resnick, ed. Inside the Funhouse, 1992 44