yes, exactly, Chitu.
Aaron - per your comment:
I'd argue that anyone who does not value a
publication purely because the
venue is called a "conference" regardless
of the impact/restrictiveness is
making a mistake.
I don't think anybody here depreciated the value of conference
publications. All I'm saying is that in my discipline
(management/organization science, and afaik sociology, too) conference
papers do not count for any career moves, grants, etc., period. You can
list them, you can give acceptance rates, but it doesn't matter. It is not
my preference, it is the system I have to operate in. This is why
conferences such as WikiSym are not very attractive for my field, as they
require some copyright transfer (which may effectively make publishing in
the final destination difficult).
Btw, in my discipline book chapters do not matter much neither, but they
still do count in some way, while conference papers do not count at all.
This is why some conference organizers game the system and publish
"monographs", de facto basing on the conference proceedings.
best,
dj
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Chitu Okoli <Chitu.Okoli(a)concordia.ca>wrote;wrote:
I can't speak for every field, but at least for
my own field of
information systems, where conferences count for zero, at least among the
most research-intensive universities:
Counting conference publications or not is in no way a judgment either way
of the quality of the papers. In information systems, it is well known that
some high-quality conferences (such as ICIS, HICSS and AoM-OCIS) regularly
field higher quality papers than many journals. However, such publication
often counted as zero in promotion and tenure considerations.
What is going on is that in our field (and I suspect also in similar
fields) *conferences are not considered terminal publication outlets--only
journals are*. That is, when you present a paper in a conference, even when
it is published in the proceedings, you are expected to later publish a
significantly revised and significantly extended version of that paper in a
journal article (and I would guess that in 90% of the time, this is what
happens, at least for high-quality papers). A high-quality conference paper
is expected to yield a high-quality journal article. Thus, *to avoid
double-counting*, conference publications are ignored in promotion and
tenure considerations.
From what I understand, in fields like computer science where conferences
are terminal publication outlets (that is, conference papers are often not
republished in journals), then it naturally makes sense that the conference
papers should be considered the measure of a researcher's productive
quality.
~ Chitu
Aaron Halfaker a écrit :
As for disciplines that do not count conference papers, I cannot comment
because my discipline (Computer Science) looks at top tier conference
publications in a similar way to journal publications. However, I'd argue
that anyone who does not value a publication purely because the venue is
called a "conference" regardless of the impact/restrictiveness is making a
mistake. I've seen people include the acceptance rates on their CV to
avoid this situation.
-Aaron
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
__________________________
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl