Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!uflorida!haven!mimsy!dormouse.cs.umd.edu!hendler From: hendler@dormouse.cs.umd.edu (Jim Hendler) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: AAAI Reviews Message-ID: <25631@mimsy.umd.edu> Date: 20 Jul 90 19:16:42 GMT References: <82157@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Reply-To: hendler@dormouse.cs.umd.edu (Jim Hendler) Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 41 I've sent quiet messages to several people about the AAAI reviews letter, but I do want to address an issue that I think is important. Both Etherington and Forbus, rightly, point out that the technique used at AAAI, with face to face and a small program committee, probably leads to a better quality of reviewing than the distributed IJCAI approach. I've been involved in several conference program committees (including IJCAI reviewing, but not AAAI yet) and agree with this. However, one of the criticisms often addressed to AAAI is not of poor reviewing (although every PC hears this), but rather of having a point of view and a relatively closed shop. Papers at IJCAI may not always be as good as AAAI (although it is arguable), but the many people involved in the reviewing keeps the conference from being biased by approach. At AAAI the Prog Chair(s) choose the subtopic area "chairs" and these folks in turn, working with the Prog chair(s), choose the reviewers. Unfortunately, some of these folks do not make the effort to be sure that the PC they pick is distributed accross the approaches to the area (and there are understandably many reasons this may happen - geographic proximity, professional collegiality, etc.). Since one of the goals each year is to have continuity, in the past this has sometimes lead AAAI to have some of its areas become somewhat narrow. I think that AAAI is aware of this, and the choice of Program chairs, PC members, etc. show an effort is being made by AAAI to avoid this. In its early years, however, I think less effort was made, and the conference gained a negative reputation among some sectors of the AI community. As a member of the AI community, I'd argue that we should encourage AAAI in these efforts, and stay involved in the conference. On the other hand, I think AAAI must remain aware of its reputation and keep making sure that PC members are chosen to span areas, that new people are being brought into the process each year, that some folks who typically do NOT publish in AAAI should be brought into the process, etc. Jim Hendler Computer Science Dept. UMCP College Park, Md. 20742 hendler@cs.umd.edu