Filters*
*select at least one option from each section

SIGCOMM Reviewing Survey

We received 173 responses to the survey. To put this number in context, overall SIG membership is roughly 10X and SIGCOMM attendance last year was 5X this number.

Q1a. How well do you think the current process works for the research community overall, on a scale of 1 (not working) to 10 (perfect)?
Q1b. How well do you think the current process has worked for your own networking research career, on a scale of 1 (not working) to 10 (perfect)?
Q1c. How well do you think the current process has worked for early-career faculty/researchers, on a scale of 1 (not working) to 10 (perfect)?
Q2a. As an author or prospective author, what aspect(s) of this current process appeal most to you?
Q2b. As an author or prospective author, what aspect(s) of the current process would you most like to see improved?
Q2c. As a program committee member or potential member, what aspect(s) of the current process appeal most to you?
Q2d. As a program committee member or potential member, what aspect(s) of the current process would you most like to see improved?
Q3a. The current review process does not allow for revisions (more than just shepherding), where how well authors address reviewer comments plays a role in the paper’s ultimate acceptance. One possibility is that papers where reviewers see promise, but also issues that need to be addressed before publication, would receive a "revise and resubmit" decision along with a list of issues that are required to be addressed before the paper can be accepted. The revised paper when resubmitted would go to the same set of reviewers for further evaluation. Would you view this be a positive step? (Assuming it can be done without impacting other aspects of the review process)
Q3b. As an author, what trade-offs do you anticipate arising from moving to allowing for revisions?
Q3c. As a PC member, what trade-offs do you anticipate arising from moving to allowing for revisions?
Q4a. SIGCOMM currently operates on the basis of a single annual deadline. An alternative is to have multiple deadlines. One possible realization is the following: Papers can be submitted to any one of many (e.g., 2 or 3) deadlines in a year. Decisions on papers submitted to a deadline -- "accept", "reject", "revise" -- will be made before the next deadline. "Rejected" papers cannot be resubmitted for 12 months from date of submission. "Revisions" (as defined in question 3a) can be submitted to the next upcoming deadline. Other variants of this multiple deadline model exist. Would introducing multiple deadlines, assuming it can be done without impacting other aspects of the review process (e.g., PC meetings), be a positive step?
Q4b. As an author, what trade-offs do you anticipate arising from moving to multiple deadlines?
Q4c. As a PC member, what trade-offs do you anticipate arising from moving to multiple deadlines?
Q5a. As SIGCOMM papers are currently published in a conference proceedings (and a CCR issue), they are not classified as journal papers, and consequently not included in key citation indices, e.g., Clarivate Web of Science, Scopus, etc. This impacts authors in several regions outside North America (many places in Europe and South America), where those citation indices are the primary criteria for promotion, funding, etc. ACM’s recently introduced PACM seeks to address this issue while preserving the existing benefits of conferences. The main constraint that PACM introduces is the need to handle revisions. Would migrating SIGCOMM to PACM or a similar "journal" model make your own networking research career better?
Q5b. Would migrating SIGCOMM to PACM or a similar "journal" model good for the community as a whole?
Q6. Are you a SIGCOMM member?
Q7. How would you characterize your professional situation?
Q8. Where are you based?
Q9. How many SIGCOMMs have you attended?
Q10. How many SIGCOMM papers have you co-authored?
Q11. How many years since your first peer-reviewed publication?
Q12. How many peer reviewed research papers have you published?
Q13. How many years since you last submitted to SIGCOMM?
Q14. How many times have you served on the SIGCOMM program committee?
Q15. How many times have you served on other program committees?