W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2016

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <jimkont@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:40:44 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a3Szw+LXq2d--axZYGo+Gb0vzusbUgEJVqxiGG3WWDG6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: janowicz@ucsb.edu
Cc: Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, LOD List <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>

> Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics,
>> semantic-web@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the
>> research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as
>> natural as using dbworld in the databases community.
>> My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major
>> distribution channels for CfPs in our community.
> I absolutely agree. In fact CfPs are one of the reasons why I am on this
> mailinglist.

Sorry but I cannot see how CFPs contribute to research.
Sending post conference / workshop summaries probably would but sending
CFPs for a conference multiple times for multiple tracks & multiple
workshops, sometimes deadline extensions and early bird / late
registrations sounds more like spam. I am saying this knowing that I have
also done this a few times.

Personally I have ~250 distinct CFPs in my inbox from 2016 alone and I
already know where I plan to submit without looking at any CFP. Actually
when I want to look up something I search online and not on my mails
anymore because it is easier.

Looking at public-lod in March I see ~ 30-40% of emails related to cfps and
~20% are related to ESWC alone.

This is not to say that we should ban CFPs but there must be something we
can do to improve this situation.


Kontokostas Dimitris
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 18:41:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:45 UTC