An assessment for the Ninth SOSP Submissions -or- How (and exactly how maybe Not) to create good systems Paper
Roy Levin and David D. Redell, Ninth SOSP Program Committee Co-chairmen
On March 21, 1983, this system committee when it comes to symposium that is 9th running System Principles, having browse the eighty-three documents submitted, chosen sixteen for presentation in the symposium. This acceptance ratio of approximately one in five approximates those of previous SOSPs, even though quantity of submissions ended up being significantly less than in the past few years. A few people in this system committee discovered it interestingly simple to split the good documents from the bad people; certainly, the ten committee members quickly decided on the disposition of over 80% for the papers. Since the acceptance ratio shows, many of these had been rejections.
Following the committee had finished its selectio n process, a few people indicated dissatisfaction within the general quality associated with submissions. Lots of the refused documents exhibited comparable weaknesses, weaknesses that the committee felt needs to have been obvious towards the writers. Within the hope of raising the caliber of future SOSP submissions, and systems documents generally speaking, the committee chose to explain the requirements found in assessing the documents it received. This informative article combines the requirements utilized by every one of the people in the committee, not merely the writers.
To try and avoid sounding preachy or pedagogic, we now have cast this presentation in the 1st and 2nd individual and adopted a light, sporadically funny design. However, the intent is serious: to indicate the typical conditions that appear over over repeatedly in technical papers in a manner that can make it easier for future writers in order to avoid them. While you check this out article, then, assume yourself to be considered a prospective writer for the psychology research topics tenth SOSP or for TOCS.Details