Slashdot Mirror
Quitting the Graphics Field Over SIGGRAPH
An anonymous reader writes "A Professor at Stony Brook university has quit the field of computer graphics. He claims too much importance is given to one particular conference (SIGGRAPH) and that acceptance of papers in this conference has too much importance in terms of the careers (tenure, grants etc) of a researcher. Furthermore he claims the paper reviewing for SIGGRAPH is not fair and bright and novel papers are summarily rejected because they are either not from a 'hot' field or because the reviewer does not understand the concept and is not willing to spend time understanding it. He has started a discussion forum which has comments from several big names in the field including the papers chair of SIGGRAPH 2007."
In replying to this comment, I know that I'm going to sound like a bitter grad student; but, for some reason, I feel inclined to burn karma and make this statement:
I sympathize with this professor, and the trouble that he has faced. Although I work in the field of computer security (instead of computer graphics), I have seen many novel and ingenious papers rejected from conferences precisely because they are not from the current 'fad' field. Usually, I require large amounts of caffeine (and alcohol) just to make it through the conferences I attend, because they are filled with uninteresting papers written by hack academics attempting to ride the latest trend.
Perhaps it is this experience that has influenced the way in which I do academic reviews for conferences, when I am called upon to do so. I have no patience for papers that have nothing meaningful to say. Whenever I give an 'accept' rating to a paper, it is because I feel that the authors have something genuinely interesting to say. Whenever I give a 'reject' rating to a paper, I do my best to give as many constructive comments as I can -- I try to point out what insightful or meaningful things the author has done, as well as things that are genuine technical flaws and should be addressed. But, the thing I am never scared to do? I have never backed down from stating in a review, blatently, that the author's work seems novel and useful, and that some of the details are way over my head and should be subject to further review.
Given all the (meaningless) talk about reforming the academic review process, I often wonder: how much of the problem described by this professor would be solved if more reviewers had the balls to admit that some of the most novel ideas were over their heads?
Salon des Refusés:
In the 1860s, artists of the nascent realist and impressionist movements submitted works to the Salon de Paris, the official exhibition sponsored by the Académie des beaux-arts, selection committee only to be rejected. The resultant complaints of bias led French emperor Napoleon III to allow the rejected works to be displayed in a separate exhibition.
The first Salon des Refusés in 1863 invited art-works rejected for display at the Salon de Paris.
Most were poor quality, leading to ridicule in the press. However, the exhibition included several important paintings including Édouard Manet's Le déjeuner sur l'herbe (The Luncheon on the Grass) and James McNeill Whistler's The White Girl. Other artists who showed at the Salon des Refusés include Henri Fantin-Latour, Paul Cézanne, Armand Guillaumin, Johan Jongkind, and Camille Pissarro.