The Jargon File (http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/t/top.html)
reports that in 1989, hacker Paul Boutin was asked
``What do you think will be the biggest problem in
computing in the 90s?'' Paul's laconic answer was
``There are only 17,000 three-letter acronyms.'' (Those
hackers among us will immediately counter that, to be
exact, there are 263 = 17,576.) Do you know
that over half (http://www.atomiser.demon.co.uk/abbrev/)
of the possible TLAs (three-letter acronyms) have been
allocated?! I wish to talk about a particular TLA: LPU
(and I don't mean the airport code of Longapung,
Indonesia).
I've been corresponding with an august group of over
a dozen conference and program chairs, trying to
solidify the conference schedule for 2002. It turns out
to be very difficult to meet the following three
objectives we set for ourselves: (1) the notification
date for one conference should precede the submission
date of the next conference by at least three weeks, to
allow for adequate revising, (2) the notification date
should follow the submission date by at least ten weeks,
to allow for adequate reviewing, and (3) no deadline
(submission, notification, camera-ready copy) should be
simultaneous with another deadline, with a conference,
or with a major holiday. We think we've finally gotten
it, but it has taken several iterations, and flexibility
on the part of everyone.
This negotiation brings to mind the commonly observed
phenomenon of repeatedly submitting a paper to
conference after conference until it gets accepted.
Those who have served on multiple program committees
quickly notice papers going through three, four, even
five conferences before being accepted, or, much more
frequently, the author finally giving up. And our effort
to arrange for non-overlapping reviewing periods, where
there is the opportunity for rejected papers to be
submitted to the next conference, may in fact encourage
this behavior.
Why are there so many poor papers? I feel that one
cause is a prominent paper-writing strategy called
``slicing and dicing''. The objective of this exercise
is to get the most papers from the research results of
one's program of study. If the papers are cut too thin,
they don't get accepted. If too much is put in each
paper, fewer papers result. The solution is to identify
the LPU (Least Publishable Unit): that
kernel of results that is broad enough to just barely be
accepted by a conference or journal. If one is lucky, a
research program might have within it four or five
LPU's, which will look very good on one's vita.
You can peruse most any conference proceedings and
identify papers written with this strategy. It is also
possible to compare the LPU granularity of various
conferences. An LPU, say, of SIGMOD, is easily two or
three LPU's in some other database conferences, not to
be named here.
The problem is that this strategy also yields papers
that have the lowest potential utility
(another form of LPU). The world is awash in write-only
papers. As an indicator of this, the Anthology (www.acm.org/sigmod/dblp/db/about/top.html)
lists the top 122 referenced papers, out of 100K
citations that were analyzed. These papers alone totaled
16% of the analyzed citations. If we assume that every
paper references on average 20 other papers, then this
portion of the skew alone relegates some 7000 papers to
not being referenced by a single other paper. A paper
that is never referenced is likely to have little or no
impact. What is the use of many papers on a vita if they
are never read by anyone else?
I recommend the opposite: that authors try to achieve
the MPU ( Maximal Publishable Unit, or
Most Potential Utility) with each paper.
Try to write a paper that may be the best
in the chosen conference or journal. This may not
maximize one's vita (at least the quantity in one's
vita), but will help to maximize the impact.
However, life is not so simple (it never is). It is
easy to arrive at a paper that has too much content,
which reduces the chance of acceptance. My first
conference submission was to SOSP, the top operating
system conference (yes, I started out as an O/S guy; it
took me a while to see the light). It was rejected, and
in retrospect, rightly so. I submitted it to
TOCS, where it was accepted. Quite simply,
the story I was trying to convey with that paper was not
tellable in 20 pages, but was possible in 40 pages. So,
some results are not appropriate for conferences: they
require too much set-up, the proofs are too complicated,
whatever. So one must first determine whether a result
is appropriate for a conference, for a journal, or even
for a book (the story of my last book could not have
been told even in a journal paper). Then, if the paper
is destined for conference, determine the conference for
which the paper represents that venue's MPU, and submit
it there. The chances are quite good that the paper will
be accepted. Ditto for journals. Ditto for book
publishers. There's my unsolicited advice, free for the
taking.
Speaking of conferences, I hope that you have
registered for the SIGMOD'01
conference, to be held in Santa Barbara on May 21 - 24,
with the co-convened PODS'01 conference and several
workshops. When you come, don't forget to bring a spare
database textbook to donate, helping disseminate the
ideas our community has originated and nurtured. This
year, books will be donated to Egypt.
I want to thank Dave Maier, who rotates off the
SIGMOD Awards Committee. Dave has served three years on
this committee, the last as chair, always providing
cogent input and advice. I thank him for his efforts,
and also thank Phil Bernstein, who has taken over as
chair, and David DeWitt and Jeff Ullman, who join as new
members, for agreeing to serve on this important
committee. The perceived worth of the SIGMOD awards is
directly correlated with the stature of those on the
committee, and this year's committee lends great
prestige to the awards it names.
The SIGMOD Elections Committee, under the able
direction of Meral Ozsoyoglu, has assembled an
impressive slate of candidates. It is such a comfort to
know that SIGMOD will be in good hands. My term ends in
June, and so this is my last chair's message.
My tenure as chair has been truly a wonderful,
incredible experience. SIGMOD is full of amazing people,
willing to invest generous amounts of time, skill, and
passion in activities that benefit others in our
community. The first page of this SIGMOD
Record lists many of these people, but there are
also many more working with the conference and other
activities. My joy over the past four years has been to
interact with such people, and to get to know them as
colleagues and as friends. I am deeply grateful for the
opportunity you have given me to serve you, and I thank
you from the bottom of my heart.
See you in Santa Barbara!
| Rick Snodgrass |
| January,
2001 | |
