SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Findings and implications from data mining the IMC review process
10 references·0 citing·26 second hop
Findings and implications from data mining the IMC review process (2012)Findings and implications from data minin…Reviewing peer review (2011)Reviewing peer reviewRebooting the CS publication process (2011)Rebooting the CS publication …ViewpointProgram committee overload in systems (2009)ViewpointProgram committee ov…What ought a program committee to do (2008)What ought a program committe…ViewpointScaling the academic publication process to internet scale (2008)ViewpointScaling the academic…Thoughts on reviewing (2008)Thoughts on reviewingPaper and proposal reviews (2008)Paper and proposal reviewsAuthor feedback experiment at PAM 2007 (2007)Author feedback experiment at…Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment (2005)Experiences from the Sigcomm …Thirteen Ways to Look at the Correlation Coefficient (1988)Thirteen Ways to Look at the …Legal issues surrounding monitoring during network research (2007)Conducting cybersecurity research legally and ethically (2008)A Framework for Understanding and Applying Ethical Principles in Network and Security Research (2010)Protection of information in computer systems (1975)Diffusion of scientific credits and the ranking of scientists (2009)Metrics: Do metrics matter? (2010)Publish now, judge later (2014)Being Reasonable (2015)A survey of accepted authors in computer systems conferences (2020)Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. (1997)Reviewing the reviewers (2003)Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores (1969)The Foundations of Factor Analysis. (1975)The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes (2010)Educational measurement. (2015)Textual Analysis in Accounting and Finance: A Survey (2016)Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation (2018)Double-blind reviewing (2009)“Flawed, but like democracy we don’t have a better system”: The Experts’ Insights on the Peer Review Process of Evaluating Security Papers (2022)Analyzing Cyber Security Research Practices through a Meta-Research Framework (2023)Conference reviewing considered harmful (2009)Journals for certification, conferences for rapid dissemination (2011)How healthy are software engineering conferences? (2014)A historical dataset of software engineering conferences (2013)How NOT to review a paper (2009)What does an associate editor actually do? (2013)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1988Thirteen Ways to Look at the Correlation Coefficient4,068 cited
  • 2009ViewpointProgram committee overload in systems34 cited
  • 2008ViewpointScaling the academic publication process to internet scale29 cited
  • 2005Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment17 cited
  • 2008What ought a program committee to do15 cited
  • 2011Rebooting the CS publication process10 cited
  • 2008Thoughts on reviewing10 cited
  • 2007Author feedback experiment at PAM 20078 cited
  • 2011Reviewing peer review6 cited
  • 2008Paper and proposal reviews6 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work