Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 21:28:01 -0300 (ADT) Subject: correspondence between Kelly and Barr [note from moderator: Max queried whether the following ought to be posted. Since the exchange provides useful information on granting practice in two countries, it seems appropriate though off the direct topic oflist. Any ensuing discussion should perhaps be brief, and limited to factual contributions. Regards to all, Bob] ---------------- From: Max Kelly Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 17:11:12 +1000 To: barr@triples.math.mcgill.ca, kelly_m Subject: an old letter from you to the bulletin board Dear Michael, I've been cleaning up some old email files from accounts in various countries, some of which I kept because I wanted to follow them up, whereupon they got swamped under piles of more urgent work. One was a letter of yours of 4 Apr 95 - not to the Bulletin Board, I now see, but to TAC. In it you speak of (a) Category meetings, where you say that nothing is refereed, with time given to all who want to talk; (b) Conference proceedings, which (you say) are not seriously refereed in our discipline, Categories '91 being an example, and granting bodies giving little credit for papers therein. I want to say that, if what you say is true of Canada or any other country, it is a great pity. Here, I have fought to have REFEREED conference proceedings treated equally with papers in refereed journals - and they are so both by this university and by the Australian Research Council. In fact the latter doesn't really count publications at all, but - so long as one DOES continue to publish reasonably - relies overwhelmingly on peer opinion. Moreover, I have been on the scientific committee of various conferences, such as Como and Tours; and we CERTAINLY knocked back requests to speak. I have also been a referee for many conference proceedings, and have been ASKED to apply journal standards, and have rejected papers - in particular for Durham and Como and one of the Louvain ones. The point is that I consider Conference Proceedings to be a Good Thing, of great value to our discipline. Accordingly I strongly deprecate foolish decisions about their value by grants committees, which I believe we can and should oppose - which presupposes, of course, that we henceforth DO take them seriously and apply appropriately stringent criteria as we do for journals. I should be happy to hear what you think now that 18 months have passed - and should also be happy to agree if you thought it best to send this correspondence to the Bulletin Board (except that I haven't time to write at great length myself, since there is much to do before I leave for Europe in early November). With best wishes - Max. _________________ >From barr@triples.math.mcgill.ca Tue Oct 1 00:59:19 1996 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 10:56:35 -0400 To: kelly_m@maths.su.oz.au Subject: Re: an old letter from you to the bulletin board All I can do is reiterate what my actual experience was when I was a member of a granting agency (1993-1995, incl., that is for three years). There was one case I recall especially. A woman who had a substantial pub record in CS conference proceedings. Now in CS, conference proceedings really are refereed, relatively carefully. (I refrain from trying to compare the depth of even a poor math paper with the typical CS paper as that is irrelevant to this discussion.) She explained that in CS conference proceedings were a normal publication method, absent the large number of journals that we, for example, have to choose from. No go, the committee simply would not buy it and she did not get a grant. Moreover, despite what you say, I know that conference proceedings are just not carefully refereed, even when they are refereed. Perhaps there are exceptions to this, but I am talking about the ones I have been involved in. And most meetings make no attempt to screen speakers beforehand (which is a separate question) the way CS meetings nornally do. I just got an announcement for a meeting at CMU in March. The deadline for abstracts (limited to 12 pages!) is in December, I think, and they will let you know in Feb. This is totally different from the way we do things. Not necessarily better (or worse) but different. I like the way we do it, don't get me wrong, but it makes it hard to argue that conference proceedings are in the same class. You may post this or make any other use you wish. Regards, Michael ________________________ >From kelly_m Tue Oct 1 12:07:16 1996 Date: Tue, 1 Oct 96 12:07:09 +1000 To: barr@triples.math.mcgill.ca, kelly_m@maths.su.oz.au Subject: Re: an old letter from you to the bulletin board Dear Michael, many thanks for your reply. There is little more that can be said just now - even if I had the time to philosophize about it; but the matter is a serious one, and I shall send my letter and yours to Bob Rosebrugh, so that he may decide whether it is worth while putting them on the Bulletin Board. Best wishes - Max. ______________________