Paper detail

Evolving Methods for Evaluating and Disseminating Computing Research

Social and technical trends have significantly changed methods for evaluating and disseminating computing research. Traditional venues for reviewing and publishing, such as conferences and journals, worked effectively in the past. Recently, trends have created new opportunities but also put new pressures on the process of review and dissemination. For example, many conferences have seen large increases in the number of submissions. Likewise, dissemination of research ideas has become dramatically through publication venues such as arXiv.org and social media networks. While these trends predate COVID-19, the pandemic could accelerate longer term changes. Based on interviews with leading academics in computing research, our findings include: (1) Trends impacting computing research are largely positive and have increased the participation, scope, accessibility, and speed of the research process. (2) Challenges remain in securing the integrity of the process, including addressing ways to scale the review process, avoiding attempts to misinform or confuse the dissemination of results, and ensuring fairness and broad participation in the process itself. Based on these findings, we recommend: (1) Regularly polling members of the computing research community, including program and general conference chairs, journal editors, authors, reviewers, etc., to identify specific challenges they face to better understand these issues. (2) An influential body, such as the Computing Research Association regularly issues a "State of the Computing Research Enterprise" report to update the community on trends, both positive and negative, impacting the computing research enterprise. (3) A deeper investigation, specifically to better understand the influence that social media and preprint archives have on computing research, is conducted.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.