1 / 25

Status Report on The VLDB Journal

This panel report, prepared by the VLDB editorial board, provides insights into current editorial practices, statistics, and emerging trends in database publication. It covers the structure of the editorial team, topical coverage including special issues, and the partnership with ACM for wider journal accessibility. Key statistics highlight submission and acceptance rates, turnaround times for reviews, and the impact of conference versus journal publications. This discussion emphasizes the challenges and strategies for improving review quality and dissemination in the field of database research.

elysia
Télécharger la présentation

Status Report on The VLDB Journal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. VLDB 2005 PanelDatabase Publication Practices Status Report on The VLDB Journal Kyu-Young Whang *Jointly prepared by Tamer Özsu, Andreas Heuer, and Holger Meyer

  2. Editorial Board • Current Editors-in-Chief • M. Tamer Özsu (coordinating EIC) • Elisa Bertino • Kyu-Young Whang • New editors-in-chief • Elisa Bertino (new coordinating EIC) • Klaus Dittrich (a new EIC) • Kyu-Young Whang • 36 editors - Americas: 16, Europe: 13, Asia: 7 • Tenure is 6 years. 1/3 retire every two years • Topical coverage, in particular in emerging areas, is considered

  3. Special Issues • VLDB Conference special issue • Around six best papers per year from the VLDB conference • Thematic issue • 2005: Data Management, Analysis and Mining for the Life Sciences (4/21) • Terry Gaasterland, H.V. Jagadish and Louiqa Raschid

  4. Special Issues (cont’d) • Earlier thematic issues • 2004: Stream Data Management (5/23/2) • Joseph Hellerstein and Johannes Gehrke • 2003: Semantic Web (6/20/4) • Yelena Yesha, Vijay Atluri, Anupam Joshi • 2002: XML data management (6/25) • Alon Halevy and Peter Fankhauser • 2001: E-services (7/19) • Fabio Casati, Dimitrios Georgakopuolos, Ming-Chien Shan • 2000: Database support for the Web (5/14) • Paolo Atzeni and Alberto Mendelzon • 1998: Multimedia (6/33) • M. Tamer Özsu and Stavros Christodoulakis

  5. Partnership with ACM • Started in January 2003 • ACM provides the full-text of the VLDB Journal to subscribers of the ACM Portal/Digital Library • ACM markets the VLDB Journal to its members at a price comparable to ACM’s own journals

  6. Journal Statistics

  7. 1st-Round Turnaround Time

  8. Overall Turnaround Time 1) 1) Measured for all rounds that were initiated in a given year (i.e., for both original submissions and revisions)

  9. Acceptance Time 2) 2) Time from initial submission to accept decision

  10. End-to-End Time 3) 3) Time from initial submission to publication

  11. Number of Submissions

  12. Acceptance Rate 4) 4) Percentage of those manuscripts submitted that year that were ultimately accepted

  13. Number of Articles per Year

  14. Subscriptions 333

  15. Paper Downloads (full-text) 52,582

  16. How do we do? • Quality • Has the highest impact in ISI citation index ranking in the category of “Computer Science, Information Systems” • VLDB J.(4.545), TOIS(3.533), Information Systems(3.327), TODS(1.957), TKDE(1.223), etc. • Erhard Rahm’s study shows significant increase in references after 2000 • The paper downloads have increased substantially

  17. How do we do? (cont’d) • Review process • Review times are still long, with significant variability • We aretrying hard to shorten it • Accessibility • Presence in ACM Digital Library helps enhance accessibility

  18. Discussion Point Journals vs. Conferences

  19. Conferences • Fast dissemination is the biggest merit • We are concerned about “papers being lost in the noise” (Good papers are rejected) • But, we also have to worry about incomplete/incorrect papers being accepted (Bad papers are accepted) • Papers claim fancy things, but there is insufficient or faulty proof that they work; experiments are not credible • This problem is becoming more serious as the review quality of the papers isdegrading Problems: Many papers tend to be incorrect or incomplete  Reasons: Conferences lack the processes of revision and rebuttal

  20. Journals • Journals handle these problems more properly by interactions between the authors and reviewers through a thorough revision process (typically, two rounds) • Authors have good chances to have potentially incorrect reviews rectified through a rebuttal process • Theseprocesses are essential since correctness and completeness are of prime importance for archival journals • Bad side: slow dissemination • By the time you are rejected in two years, someone else has published an incomplete version of a similar idea in a conference

  21. Inherent Differences • Conferences • fast dissemination • allowing some immaturity • Journals • archival purposes • requiring correctness and completeness

  22. Bridging the Gap between Journals and Conferences • Journals • Trying to shorten the review time • On-line availability helping fast dissemination • Conferences • Allowing revisions (e.g., rolling over some rejected papers to the same referees) • Allowing rebuttals (e.g., permitting author feedback as in SIGMOD 2005) We are making some progress, but complete merger remains a major challenge

  23. Thank You!

  24. Number of References 5) Top five papers 5) Prepared by Erhard Rahm All papers

  25. Number of References (cont’d) 5 year average 10 year average

More Related