by jordicabot | Oct 1, 2018 | Research Rants, publishing
In this Communications of the ACM column we discuss whether research conferences in computer science are too close to new members trying to join the ranks, especially when these new members try to enter the community “alone” (i.e. not publishing together...
by jordicabot | Sep 11, 2017 | Research Rants, funding
After the UML serenity prayer, the second most important prayer in my life is the following Academic Research Serenity Prayer by Micah Allen God grant me the serenity to accept that I will not get this grant, the courage to write it anyway, & the wisdom to know...
by jordicabot | Mar 21, 2017 | publishing, evaluating research, 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 | Uncategorized, Research Rants
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...
Latests SW Eng posts