- From: Rob Warren <warren@muninn-project.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:26:36 -0300
- To: Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br>
- Cc: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, Andrea Splendiani <andrea.splendiani@iscb.org>, Bo Ferri <zazi@smiy.org>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 27-Apr-13, at 12:52 PM, Daniel Schwabe wrote: >> I just spent an hour this week removing "last-accessed: 01-01-2012" >> data from my reference list, so I could get inside a page limit. >> Why? The data is (slightly) valuable, so why remove it? Page limit >> is a tree-ware hangover. I blame the conference organisers. > > Surprisingly, this is actually not true. In a couple of conferences > where I was the PC Chair (including ISWC), I suggested precisely > this, and the OVERWHELMING reaction was that people preferred page > limits (and not too big either). The rationale was that it would > then become "unfair" because some people would submit shorter papers > than others, and possibly be at a disadvantage. It would eventually > lead to a "race" with people submitting longer and longer papers, in > the hopes of maximizing their chances of acceptance, and put an > impossible burden on reviewers. > Perhaps this may make sense for journal publications, but it's not > such an obvious conclusion as it may look at first sight. "This paper isn't [maximum page limit] and therefore can't be good work or an important problem." -rhw
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2013 19:26:59 UTC