infocom 2011 tpc informational meeting tpc co-chairs byrav ramamurthy (university of...

20
INFOCOM 2011 TPC Informational Meeting TPC co-Chairs Byrav Ramamurthy (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Jie Wu (Temple University) Qian Zhang (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) Technical Program Vice Chair for Information Systems (EDAS) Jiangchuan Liu (Simon Fraser University) 17 March 2010

Upload: pauline-patterson

Post on 24-Dec-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

INFOCOM 2011 TPC Informational Meeting

TPC co-ChairsByrav Ramamurthy (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)

Jie Wu (Temple University)Qian Zhang (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

Technical Program Vice Chair for Information Systems (EDAS)Jiangchuan Liu (Simon Fraser University)

17 March 2010

Overview

• Multiple-level structure for paper reviewing– TPC Co-chairs– Area TPC (ATPC) Chairs– TPC members (TPC lead and TPC review) and Backup TPC

members• Highlights

– Increase number of ATPC Chairs– Enhance the ATPC Chairs paper matching process– Enhance the TPC paper matching process

Reviewing Process

ATPC Chairs• In total we will have 39 ATPC Chairs for Infocom 2011

– Detailed information can be found at http://www.comsoc.org/confs/infocom/2011/

– Each ATPC Chair is responsible for 40-50 papers– Papers will be assigned to the ATPC Chairs immediately after

the submission deadline– Should decide on “Early reject” in two cases:

• Paper is not ready for review (missing figures, clearly out of scope, etc.)• Inconsistency between author names/affiliations on the paper and in

EDAS– Such inconsistency may result in assigning papers to reviewers with conflict of

interest

ATPC Chairs (2)• Oversee the discussion phase; intervene if TPC-Lead is

ineffective• Make sure there is consistency between TPC-Lead summary and

TPC reviews• Choose/add extra reviewer whenever necessary

– E.g., low quality/biased reviews, controversial reviews, missing reviews– Can enter own review – May utilize a subset of TPC members (backup TPC members), who are

assigned to help during this phase• Provide recommendation to TPC Chairs

– Three outcomes: accept, reject, discuss at TPC meeting– Try hard not to put the paper into the discussion phase

• Participate in TPC meeting and lead group discussions

Matching Papers to ATPC Chairs• A list of areas will be provided when authors submit paper

• Further adjustments will be made to make sure the load balancing among all the ATPC Chairs

Cognitive radio networks and spectrum management

Cyber-physical systems and networks Data center, Grid and Cloud networks

Delay tolerant networks Energy-efficient networks Future Internet architecture

Middleware and network services Mobile ad hoc networks Multimedia networking

Network QoS, economics and pricing Network communication and switching technologies

Network management

Network monitoring and measurement

Network protocols Network security and trustworthiness

Network theory and optimization Optical and broadband networks Peer-to-peer (P2P) and overlay networks

Sensor and actuator networks Vehicular networks Web and online social networks

Wireless mesh networks Wireless networks - Cellular, WLAN, RFID

Wireless networks - Cross-layer design

Wireless underwater and underground networks

Miscellaneous topics

Matching Papers to TPC Members

• Under each area, there are multiple topics• Each topic also includes the methodology that is used, e.g.

Theory/Analysis, Simulation, and Experimentation/Measurements

• A sample topic can be:• wireless mesh networks: scheduling: experimentation/measurement

• TPC members need to indicate their interest in terms of topics (before submission deadline)

• TPC members claim papers based on title and abstract (after submission deadline)

• Fine adjustment will be made to ensure a good match

TPC Members

• Review assigned papers (15-18 papers) by due date • Each TPC member will also be TPC-Lead for 4-6 papers in

his/her group of papers– NO delegation of these papers– TPC Leads to provide summary of online discussions

• Backup TPC will have no more than 6-8 papers– Quality review is expected within short period of time

• Participate in online discussion – Try to resolve conflicts

• Attend TPC meeting in Los Angeles, CA – TPC meeting date has been fixed to Nov. 13, 2010

TPC Lead

• For each paper, one TPC member is designated as TPC Lead

• TPC Lead– Must review this paper – NO delegation – Initiate and lead the online discussion phase– Summarize discussion results and make recommendations

(accept, reject, discuss, need additional review)– Summary report is not available to the authors

Paper Delegation• Only non-TPC-Lead Papers can be delegated to qualified

reviewers– TPC member is responsible for overseeing the quality

• Delegation is performed via EDAS• Delegation must be done within 10 days from the date you

are assigned the papers • TPC member must personally ensure that the delegated

reviews are completed on time– Request the delegated reviewers to participate in the on-line

discussion phase– No more than 25% of the non TPC-lead papers may be delegated (~ 3

papers)

On-line Discussion Phase• This is a critical part of the review process

– Starts after the reviews are due, and will last around 2 weeks• All reviewers of the paper must participate in the on-line discussion

through EDAS– During this phase, the reviewers can see the reviews of each other– The reviewers are required to understand the other reviews and to resolve

inconsistencies• The discussion is also very important even when there is

agreement about accept/reject– E.g. if the paper is ranked (4, 5, 6) (We want to identify the best 3-5 papers

for best paper award candidates)– Or if the paper is ranked (1, 1, 4) (We want to give coherent response)

• It is acceptable to change your review and score after the discussion!– Please be fair to the authors!!!

On-line Discussion (2)• Please provide a detailed discussion related to the

technical merits of the paper– For example, “The authors have not cited relevant prior work.

The paper has significant technical deficiencies. Equation 12 is incorrect because ...”

• Avoid the impulse to push paper to the discussion category straightaway! We are time-constrained at the TPC meeting– (for a 1, 4, 4 paper): “I see we have no consensus. Let’s

recommend that the paper be discussed during the TPC meeting.”

– “Yes, let’s discuss at the TPC meeting”

Detailed Schedule

TPC members indicate their interest in terms of topics 1-Jun-2010 15-Jun-2010

Paper registration 1-Jul-2010 23-Jul-2010

Paper submission 1-Jul-2010 30-Jul-2010

TPC Co-Chairs assign papers to Area TPC Chairs 31-Jul-2010 7-Aug-2010

TPC members claim papers 3-Aug-2010 10-Aug-2010

Area-Chairs make preliminary check for early reject 8-Aug-2010 14-Aug-2010

TPC Co-Chairs make early reject decisions 15-Aug-2010 15-Aug-2010

TPC Co-Chairs assign papers to TPC members 15-Aug-2010 28-Aug-2010

TPC members report about any conflict of interest 29-Aug-2010 1-Sep-2010

TPC members delegate papers to qualified reviewers 29-Aug-2010 9-Sep-2010

Review Process 29-Aug-2010 3-Oct-2010

Detailed Schedule (2)

Review Process 29-Aug-2010 3-Oct-2010

On-line Discussion phase 3-Oct-2010 17-Oct-2010

Area TPC Chairs make recommendation (obtain extra

review, if needed) 18-Oct-2010 31-Oct-2010

TPC meeting 13-Nov-2010

Notification 21-Nov-2010

Final version due 21-Dec-2010

Conference 10-Apr-2011 15-Apr-2011

Final Points• TPC members are responsible for the delegated reviews• A TPC-Lead must personally review the papers for which he/she is

the Lead: NO delegation

• Sufficient discussion during on-line discussion phase is expected• TPC members are expected to resolve inconsistencies during the

discussion

• ATPC Chairs try to decide reject/accept before putting a paper into the to-be-discussed-at-TPC meeting category

• High quality reviews are essential for the success of the conference

Contacts

• Email: [email protected] • Individual Emails:

[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]

Questions ?

See you all at INFOCOM 2011!

• Backup

Executive Committee• General Chair

– Lionel M. Ni, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology• General Co-Chair

– Wenjun Zhang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University• General Vice Chair

– Minglu Li, Shanghai Jiao Tong University• TPC Co-Chairs

– Byrav Ramamurthy, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA– Jie Wu, Temple University– Qian Zhang, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

• Technical Program Vice Chair for Information Systems (EDAS)– Jiangchuan Liu, Simon Fraser University, Canada

• Mini-conference Co-chairs– Pedro Ruiz, University of Murcia, Spain– Guohong Cao, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

• Panel Chair– Sajal Das, NSF/University Texas at Arlington, USA

• Standing Committee Chair– Harvey Freeman, HAF Consulting, Inc., USA

Executive Committee (Cont.)• Publicity Co-Chairs

– Jatinder Pal Singh, Deutsche Telekom, Inc, USA – Kui Ren, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA

• Workshop Co-chairs– Ivan Stojmenovic, University of Ottawa, Canada – Chunming Qiao, SUNY at Buffalo, USA

• Demo/Posters Chair– Avinash Srinivashan, Bloomsburg University, USA

• Student Activities Chair– Xinbing Wang, Shanghai Jiaotong University, China

• Student Travel Grants Co-Chairs– Weiyi Zhang, North Dakota State University, USA

• Local Arrangement Chair– Yanmin Zhu, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

• Finance Chairs– Bruce Worthman, IEEE ComSoc, USA – GuangTao Xue, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

• Publication Chairs– Kartik Gopalan, State University of New York, USA – Aaron Striegel, University of Notre Dame, USA

• Web Chair– Zhaoqing Jia, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China