by jordicabot | Mar 21, 2017 | evaluating research, publishing, Research Rants
I have the feeling that more and more people cite workshop papers to sustain their claims. As if workshop papers were peer-reviewed. They are not. At most, they are “peer-filtered” (meaning that the PC of the workshop checked the work to make sure authors...
by jordicabot | Nov 16, 2016 | Research Rants, Uncategorized
This article (presented at the ER2016 conference) proposes a conceptual schema providing a holistic view of conference-related information (e.g., authors, papers, committees and topics). This schema is automatically and incrementally populated with data available...
by jordicabot | Oct 10, 2016 | Research Rants
This is a never-ending discussion in our community. As a member of this community, I’ve tried to do a small contribution to this discussion by analzying co-authorship graphs of software engineering conferences. Results have been published in the paper: Analysis...
by jordicabot | Aug 11, 2016 | Research Rants
As an author and editor of journal papers, there is nothing worse than reviewers that accept to review a paper, propose a major revision and then decline to review the revised version of the paper. This is the worse thing you could do. If you accept to review a paper...
by jordicabot | Jun 22, 2016 | Research Rants
Listening to Kevin Kelly (Senior Maverick and co-founder at Wired Magazine, co-foounder of the All Species Foundation and, among many other things, now author of The Inevitable: understanding the 12 technological forces that will shape our future) on this Tim Ferriss...
by jordicabot | May 27, 2016 | Research Rants
I was listening on Tim Ferriss podcast this interview with best-seller writer Sebastian Junger when one of the things Sebastian said really ressonate with me. They were talking about writer’s block when Sebastian said: You never want to solve a research problem...
