Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
blog.geomblog.org | ||
| | | | |
windowsontheory.org
|
|
| | | | | Michael Mitzenmacher pointsto two posts ofSuresh Venkatasubramanian on the issue of so called "double blind reviews" (i.e., anonymous submissions) in theory conferences. In short, both Michael and Suresh think they are a good idea. I agree with much of their motivations, but, based on my experience in both non-blinded (e.g., STOC/FOCS) and blinded (e.g., CRYPTO) | |
| | | | |
greatresearch.org
|
|
| | | | | Learning how to review papers not only (obviously) makes you a better reviewer, but it can also help you as an author, since an understanding of the process can help you write your paper submissions for an audience of reviewers. If you know the criteria that a reviewer will use to judge your paper, you... | |
| | | | |
togelius.blogspot.com
|
|
| | | | | Computer science differs from most other academic fields in that conference papers are counted as real, citable publications. While journals... | |
| | | | |
www.sindark.com
|
|
| | | [AI summary] The article argues that the Trump administration's cuts to agencies like NASA, the CDC, and NCAR, alongside ideological attacks on science and education, are devastating America's intellectual and technological future while exacerbating global risks from AI, nuclear weapons, and climate change. | ||
