This article is mostly whining that evidence-free speculation about how to write good software is no longer publishable in top conferences. And the major evidence cited is that there's a specific citation style required, a standard feature of every kind of publishing since forever. I promise (having reviewed many times for the specific conference under discussion) that no one's paper is rejected (or even denigrated) for failing to use appropriate citation style, people comment on it the same way they would comment on any other style issue.

Note how the author talks about "main conferences", "major conferences", and "top conferences". That's the root issue. Whenever there is prestige available, people will compete for it. And if you have a competition, you should formalize the rules to make it fair.

When I was doing PhD ~15 years ago, I noticed that I rarely cited work that appeared in the top conferences of the subfield. Those conferences covered so wide range of topics that often only 1 or 2 papers were in the same subsubfield as me. And even those were often not directly relevant to my work.

But then there were small specialized conferences that had plenty of interesting papers every year. I left CS for another field a decade ago, but I still regularly attend some of those conferences and review for them. The papers published in them are still interesting and relevant to my work.

A big part of the problem here is that Universities have increasingly begun attaching prestige to specific “top” conference publications for both ranking and faculty promotions. A good example of the phenomenon can be seen in [1] (sorry for the noun-citation!) which only gives credit for approximately three conferences in each field. Combine this with a flood of new researchers entering CS, you have a recipe for “top” conferences being essentially destroyed and filled with uninspired work.

(And contrary to the joke in the article, even your own work becomes uninspired when you ship it to those conferences. You can’t afford to be quirky or interesting.)

Fortunately every field has a fourth or fifth-tier conference that isn’t on this list (or a specialized topic conference that the rankings folks don’t care about), and those still serve the purposes that conferences were made for. You just might not be able to convince a ranking-obsessed administrator that your work has any value if you publish there.

[1] https://csrankings.org/

I think the example of how to "correctly" cite a paper actually makes this issue seem smaller than it is. In reality, these conferences have very complicated (and unstated) "rules" for how a paper is supposed to look. If an "outsider" wanders in and submits a paper with new ideas, it will be very obvious that they are not a "member of the community" and their paper will usually be treated much more harshly as a result. This adds a huge amount of friction to research.

And what's particularly frustrating is that many organizers will try to combat this by writing papers saying they "particularly encourage" papers that are interdisciplinary, or focused on less fashionable topics, etc. It's good that they are trying to change things, but I think the main effect in practice is to encourage people to spend their time writing papers that have little chance of being accepted.

This issue isn't at all unique to computer science, though. Try publishing a paper in a top economics journal as an outsider!

A great link nugget from the article: https://wp.doc.ic.ac.uk/cairesfe/wp-content/uploads/sites/80... - a parody on how some historically very significant papers might be rejected in today's system. made me chuckle a lot

The main issue I see is that papers are actually becoming so focussed on form that they are now unreadable. People prefer reading my blog for my papers than reading the papers themselves. In fact I hear people telling me they understood the blog _better_. The whole academic writing shtick has become so obtuse that not only writing is cumbersome, but so is reading.

The other side of all this academic brownie points via papers (and doing reviews, which has become "brownie points for gatekeeping") is that most academic software is not only unmaintained, but actually unusable. They rarely even compile, and if they do, there is no --help, no good defaults, no README, and no way to maintain them. They are single-use software and their singular use is to write the paper. Any other use-case is almost frowned upon.

One of the worst parts of Academic software is that if you re-write it in a ways that's actually usable and extensible, you can't publish that -- it's not new ("research") work. And you will not only have to cite the person who wrote the first useless version forever, but they will claim they have done it if your tool actually takes off.

BTW, there are academics who don't follow this trend. I am glad that in my field (SAT), some of the best, e.g. Armin Biere and Randal Bryant are not like this at all. Their software is insanely nice and they fix bugs many-many years after release. Notice that they are also incredibly good engineers.

When I started my PhD in CS/AI in the late 90s, my department's AI faculty was already telling us, "at the major conferences, all the action is in the workshops." And this was my experience, the workshops were indeed where you found the most engaging experiences and interesting new things.

Meanwhile the work at the main at the main conference of AAAI or ICML was much farther along, and the value of having it presented at a conference, rather than a journal, was minimal. The conventional wisdom was, "the talk is just an advertisement for the paper."

There’s a larger problem here beyond careerization that is going unsaid. People are using these metrics as an assessment of their self worth. I’ve had top researchers point out that such and such publication was accepted in the industrial track vs research track, and how important it was to keep that flag in the bibliographical data, even well after publication in a top conference. Most papers research or industrial stay in obscurity. The truly novel ones will catch like wildfire. The metricization of research and academic standing is the underlying culprit.

This article resonated with me and puts into words some of the feelings I had towards the end of my PhD. This part:

> An interesting case in software engineering is dismissal for lack of “evaluation.” It would be, of course, ridiculous to deny the benefits that the emphasis on systematic empirical measurement has brought to software engineering in the last three decades. But it has become difficult today to publish conceptual work not yet backed by systematic quantitative studies.

struck a chord with me. The top-tier CS systems conferences for me (OSDI and SOSP) have gotten to the point where you basically have to be writing the paper about the system you built at a FAANG that serves 1B users daily to get accepted.

It's hard for a novel idea and first-cut implementation to compete with systems built over many years with a team of a dozen software engineers. Obviously, those big systems deserve tons of credit and it's amazing that Big Tech publishes those papers! Credit to them. But it's also the case that novel ideas with an implementation that hasn't seen 1B users yet still have value.

I suppose the argument is that workshops serve that purpose of novel ideas with unproven implementation. There's some truth to that, but as the article highlights, the full conference papers are the real currency.

Unfortunately it's becoming an increasing problem that travel is not equally safe depending on your nationality, destination, and other factors. CRYPTO, the annual "S-tier" conference in California, has already let people attend virtually online, and is considering its options for next year.

Any conference that announces itself as being proudly diverse and inclusive will have to have some difficult board meetings this year. It's not just the US, there's several countries in Europe that need a closer look at too. I hear Canada and the Nordic countries are fairly safe.

The whole show up to conferences internationally to network and put attendace on your CV thing is also not great for people looking after children, among others.

In practice if you want discussion and citation for your cryptography paper, it has to go on IACR eprint at some point. Being published in CRYPTO is still a major endorsement, but not the way people actually get hold of a copy these days.

_The Pervert's (Lacanism) Guide to Computer Languages_: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZyvIHYn2zk or if you're old school or your father was a shrink you could use the Leary Wheel from his _Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality_.

That would change the dynamic. Some might object: "psychohistory!" What are we doing here anyway? And, what are we meant to be doing? Where is the "philosophy of computer science"?

The publication of scientific papers is broken too:

1. authors that just reviewed the paper, did not do anything substential 2. papers that do not ship with working code 3. papers that are meaningless

In AI/ML job ads it is quite typical for the requirements to include, "must have published at top AI conferences include but not limited to NeuroIPS, ICML, ICLR, ...etc", which I find completely crazy, because it just incentivizes grad students to publish rubbish papers to have on their CV, and indeed most conference papers in AI/ML are complete rubbish, because it is trivial to take any architecture and any corresponding benchmark, tweak the architecture slightly and publish a paper. Even dud results are published as "promising". It's just a complete shitshow, and as somebody who is in the field it feels as though you cannot even complain because people get offended. You're just supposed to keep spinning the hamster wheel without posing any hard questions. Moreover, having published at top conferences does not prove that somebody is going to be a good ML Engineer. It just proves that somebody knows how to write a compelling conference paper, which is a completely different skill set altogether.

The article says that Attention is All You Need wasn't published in a "standard" conference, but wasn't it published in NIPS? Did I misread the article?

The reason behind the citation style is to serve the automated parsing of citations by research information systems, which can then roll up all of your contributions to the field into a single score which determines one’s entire worth in academia.

The author really should have recognized this, as it serves his point about careerism and brownie points.

The idea that being forced into a citation style stifles innovation is hilarious, especially coming from a computer scientist - formal systems are all we do. It’s not so hard, is it? Use a citation manager and have them generated for you!

Pretty funny OOPSLA/SPLASH is the first example given because that's exactly the conference that came to mind when I clicked to read the article.

Honestly though, I find much better luck in the workshops. They don't really have the same reach as the main conference, and the specificity of the topics means that the reviewers are usually much more focused on content rather than checking boxes. They want to make a good workshop for the attendees, so it's far more important for workshops to focus on actual content rather than the resume building activities. The LIVE workshop for instance doesn't even really require a paper: https://2024.splashcon.org/home/live-2024#Call-for-Submissio...

Other workshops require just an extended abstract. Or maybe a short paper that doesn't have to be archived. I find these venues easier to get into, easier to present at, and easier to have a good discussion with the attendees.

1) Increase page length maximums, 10 pages is too low to explain something. I am looking directly at you IEEE.

2) Record and post all of the conferences, ACM is doing great strides here, but many many conferences aren't even recorded.

3) Reduce the paywalls and the access to all information, again I want to really support the ACM here, but the conferences that aren't broadcast for free (and also aren't recorded) are also the ones that are hella expensive and you have to attend in person (making them 5x as expensive with travel and lodging). Provide a happy medium, $300 for remote attendance? Delay publishing of the recordings (just post them raw) by 12 weeks?

The collaboration mediums should scale with the number of folks in the population. The venue stays the same but you 10x the input, lots of great people and great research is going to get broken.