Portuguese Research-Universities: Why Not The Best?

Apresentação:
http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~rfern/athans/

Artigo:
ATHANS, Michael (2002), "Universidades portuguesas: por que não as melhores?”, Gazeta de Física, vol.25, fascículo 1, Abril. Disponível aqui (PDF)

sobre o processo de peer review

Conference reviewing considered harmful
ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review
Volume 43 , Issue 2 (April 2009)

This paper develops a model of computer systems research to help prospective authors understand the often obscure workings of conference program committees. We present data to show that the variability between reviewers is often the dominant factor as to whether a paper is accepted. We argue that paper merit is likely to be zipf distributed, making it inherently difficult for program committees to distinguish between most papers. We use game theory to show that with noisy reviews and zipf merit, authors have an incentive to submit papers too early and too often. These factors make conference reviewing, and systems research as a whole, less efficient and less effective. We describe some recent changes in conference design to address these issues, and we suggest some further potential improvements.

Research Evaluation for Computer Science

artigo interessante na Communications of the ACM:

Research Evaluation for Computer Science
Reassessing the assessment criteria and techniques traditionally used in evaluating computer science research effectiveness.

Bertrand Meyer, Christine Choppy, Jørgen Staunstrup, Jan van Leeuwen

Communications of the ACM
Vol. 52 No. 4, Pages 31-34

orientação de alunos de doutoramento

Dois artigos muito interessantes sobre o assunto. Tirados da CACM de Março 2009:

Your Students Are Your Legacy

This Viewpoint boils down into a few magazine pages what I've learned in my 32 years of mentoring Ph.D. students.

Pages 30-33

Advising Students for Success

Some advice for those doing the advising (and what the advisors can learn from the advisees).

Pages 34-37

reviews de artigos

Genial:

How NOT to review a paper: the tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer
Graham Cormode
ACM SIGMOD Record archive
Volume 37 , Issue 4 (December 2008)
Pages 100-104

rankings de universidades

BREAKING RANKS: ASSESSING QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
The OECD international forum designed for higher education institutions
imhe info Dec. 2008

a good paper, according to the SOSP cfp

A good paper will demonstrate that the authors:

  • are attacking a significant problem,
  • have devised an interesting, compelling solution,
  • have demonstrated the practicality and benefits of the solution,
  • have drawn appropriate conclusions,
  • have clearly described what they have done, and
  • have clearly articulated the advances beyond previous work.
Submissions will be judged on originality, significance, interest, clarity, relevance, and correctness.

source: SOSP'09 CFP