IEEE Computer vs Commu. of ACM - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>CS - 计算机科学

IEEE Computer vs Commu. of ACM

IEEE Computer vs Commu. of ACM# CS - 计算机科学

w*g2005-05-17 07:05

1 楼

有个idea适合写综述或者概念文章，打算投IEEE computer 或者Comm. of ACM，那个声誉
要好些？还有SIGMod Record如何？这些magazine文章有没有什么分量?
这两个都是月刊，是不是审稿周期也短些？其他很多IEEE transactions都要半年以上。

f*p2005-05-17 07:05

2 楼

Not everybody can write survey or idea paper.

【在 w********g 的大作中提到】

: 有个idea适合写综述或者概念文章，打算投IEEE computer 或者Comm. of ACM，那个声誉
: 要好些？还有SIGMod Record如何？这些magazine文章有没有什么分量?
: 这两个都是月刊，是不是审稿周期也短些？其他很多IEEE transactions都要半年以上。

S*r2005-05-17 07:05

3 楼

IEEE computer是偏硬件，系统设计的文章。
如果你的是概念性的东西，还是comm of ACM对口。
但是这个杂志更像是交流性质的，不是被邀请的或者大牛的文章，
一般很难收吧。

声誉
上。

【在 f*****p 的大作中提到】

: Not everybody can write survey or idea paper.

s*o2005-05-17 07:05

4 楼

个
I think you have no idea of what is Comm of ACM
CACM is the best magazine in the field. There is no way to publish a idea of
survey paper if you are not a bull. You may have read some papers from CACM,
saying "ha, this paper is simple, I can write the same one". You are totally
wrong.
Can you publish a idea or survey on "Science" or "Nature"?
Bull can but we can not.
以

【在 S*********r 的大作中提到】

: IEEE computer是偏硬件，系统设计的文章。
: 如果你的是概念性的东西，还是comm of ACM对口。
: 但是这个杂志更像是交流性质的，不是被邀请的或者大牛的文章，
: 一般很难收吧。
:
: 声誉
: 上。

s*o2005-05-17 07:05

5 楼

那
年
In term of reputation, CACM is better than IEEE computer.
CACM is better than most IEEE Trans or ACM trans. Believe me.
IEEE computer is okey, no better than Trans.

【在 s*****o 的大作中提到】

:
: 个
: I think you have no idea of what is Comm of ACM
: CACM is the best magazine in the field. There is no way to publish a idea of
: survey paper if you are not a bull. You may have read some papers from CACM,
: saying "ha, this paper is simple, I can write the same one". You are totally
: wrong.
: Can you publish a idea or survey on "Science" or "Nature"?
: Bull can but we can not.
: 以

w*g2005-05-17 07:05

6 楼

I saw a student in out dept wrote 2 CACM papers before, all 4-page papers
on a relatively narrow field maybe he was invited to a special issue of CACM,
not sure....
this guy also watered some papers on IEEE Computer, but his boss once told
me he is good at building fancy things without abstraction and generalization.
maybe his field is too narrow, not many competitions, other fields are much
tougher

f*p2005-05-17 07:05

7 楼

Maybe he's the son of AE or EoC; maybe his professor is a super bull/cow...
Anyway, it doesn't hurt to try. Just go ahead and good luck.

【在 w********g 的大作中提到】

: I saw a student in out dept wrote 2 CACM papers before, all 4-page papers
: on a relatively narrow field maybe he was invited to a special issue of CACM,
: not sure....
: this guy also watered some papers on IEEE Computer, but his boss once told
: me he is good at building fancy things without abstraction and generalization.
: maybe his field is too narrow, not many competitions, other fields are much
: tougher

w*f2005-05-17 07:05

8 楼

I read almost every issues of CACM in the recent three years. Not all the
articles (I can not use the word "paper" here) in CACM are written by
bulls, some of them are written by students and the contents really suck
sometimes, maybe the topic of the article fits the main theme of a specific
issue quite well. For example, there is one issue of CACM this year about
high technology/outsourcing in China. A couple of papers there were written
by some novice students, the contents really suck, not to

【在 s*****o 的大作中提到】

:
: 那
: 年
: In term of reputation, CACM is better than IEEE computer.
: CACM is better than most IEEE Trans or ACM trans. Believe me.
: IEEE computer is okey, no better than Trans.

f*p2005-05-17 07:05

9 楼

The the EoC should be blamed.

【在 w***f 的大作中提到】

: I read almost every issues of CACM in the recent three years. Not all the
: articles (I can not use the word "paper" here) in CACM are written by
: bulls, some of them are written by students and the contents really suck
: sometimes, maybe the topic of the article fits the main theme of a specific
: issue quite well. For example, there is one issue of CACM this year about
: high technology/outsourcing in China. A couple of papers there were written
: by some novice students, the contents really suck, not to

w*f2005-05-17 07:05

10 楼

The problem is "All the articles in CACM are not peer reviewed".
It's beyond the capability of the EoC to determine the quality of a
submission.

【在 f*****p 的大作中提到】

: The the EoC should be blamed.

s*o2005-05-17 07:05

11 楼

hey, man, I read every issue of CACM for last 5 years and beyond.
What I am talking about is the RESEARCH PAPER in CACM, not letter, not
news, not editional articles. Do you count News in "Science" as a research
paper?
high technology/outsourcing in China is categoried as "news" or something else
rather than research paper. of course, you may want to use "article" instead
of "paper", because CACM is limited by the page and details. however,
articles in CACM can also be classified as "research or

【在 w***f 的大作中提到】

w*f2005-05-17 07:05

12 楼

Hey man. Don't lie in your reply.
1. Just look at April 2005 volume 48, No 4. There are 7 articles totaling
almost 40 pages about China hypes there. Do you call them news? Read those
articles(or research papers according to your standard) before you reply,
I highly doubt your claim.
2. Read my post again before you argue. My main point is - "You can not
call those CACM articles "research paper" because they are not peer-reviewed.

【在 s*****o 的大作中提到】

: hey, man, I read every issue of CACM for last 5 years and beyond.
: What I am talking about is the RESEARCH PAPER in CACM, not letter, not
: news, not editional articles. Do you count News in "Science" as a research
: paper?
: high technology/outsourcing in China is categoried as "news" or something else
: rather than research paper. of course, you may want to use "article" instead
: of "paper", because CACM is limited by the page and details. however,
: articles in CACM can also be classified as "research or

r*y2005-05-17 07:05

13 楼

The famous RSA algorithm is published as a non peer-reviewed article too.
Because it is orignally published in CACM.

peer-reviewed.
else
instead
the
specific
about
written
many
you
of
Chinese
CACM
was

【在 w***f 的大作中提到】

: Hey man. Don't lie in your reply.
: 1. Just look at April 2005 volume 48, No 4. There are 7 articles totaling
: almost 40 pages about China hypes there. Do you call them news? Read those
: articles(or research papers according to your standard) before you reply,
: I highly doubt your claim.
: 2. Read my post again before you argue. My main point is - "You can not
: call those CACM articles "research paper" because they are not peer-reviewed.

s*o2005-05-17 07:05

14 楼

you are right, 老鳄鱼...
I read every issue, but I forgot most of them.
haha...

peer-reviewed.
else
instead
the
specific
about
written
many
you
of
Chinese
CACM
was

【在 w***f 的大作中提到】

b*g2005-05-17 07:05

15 楼

今日的 CACM哪能跟十多年前的比啊,早就变成PC Magazine之类的杂志,无聊至极
真要看点学术的东西应该是Journal of ACM

【在 r*****y 的大作中提到】

: The famous RSA algorithm is published as a non peer-reviewed article too.
: Because it is orignally published in CACM.
:
: peer-reviewed.
: else
: instead
: the
: specific
: about
: written

m*n2005-05-17 07:05

16 楼

papers in Journal of ACM are generally theoretical, ACM trans are of very high
quality too and specilize in sub-areas of CS.

【在 b**g 的大作中提到】

: 今日的 CACM哪能跟十多年前的比啊,早就变成PC Magazine之类的杂志,无聊至极
: 真要看点学术的东西应该是Journal of ACM

m*r2005-05-17 07:05

17 楼

其实Journal of ACM 原则上讲并不都是理论文章.但是它有一个要求,须have
fundamental significance.这样一来,能入选的大底就是理论性很强的了,因为一般的文
章看起来都不太难,没太大深度.其实SIAM J.OF COMPUTING 也很不错.今日的 CACM是远远
不能跟十,二十多年前的比了.很多东西毫无学术价值.

high
too.

【在 m*******n 的大作中提到】

: papers in Journal of ACM are generally theoretical, ACM trans are of very high
: quality too and specilize in sub-areas of CS.

b*l2005-05-17 07:05

18 楼

其实CACM灌水也是不难的，俺就灌过一篇，也是research paper
那个paper按自己都没看过一遍。

【在 m*****r 的大作中提到】

: 其实Journal of ACM 原则上讲并不都是理论文章.但是它有一个要求,须have
: fundamental significance.这样一来,能入选的大底就是理论性很强的了,因为一般的文
: 章看起来都不太难,没太大深度.其实SIAM J.OF COMPUTING 也很不错.今日的 CACM是远远
: 不能跟十,二十多年前的比了.很多东西毫无学术价值.
:
: high
: too.