Umesh Vazirani has a short writeup explaining the new FOCS submission procedure. While the problems are real (for example, the amount of work associated with being a FOCS/STOC PC memeber is ludicriously large), the solution looks a bit too mild for the problem.

The only worry I have is that a PC member might “referee” the paper by reading the short summary instead of reading the whole paper (hopefully not going to happen). I think one can make this more effective, by:

  1. The short two page summary should be informal (i.e., like the talk given for the paper). It should not be just a cut & paste of the intro of the paper.
  2. The summary should explicitly address several questions that would help refereeing the paper:
    1. Why do the authors care/excited about this result?
    2. Why do you think the paper should be accepted?

Via Muthu.

Comments are closed.