Panel Discussion on Publications
This is holds background information about the panel discussion on publications to be held at Eurocrypt 2024. We include some references of pages that may be relevant.
Abstract
Our community is facing several evolutions that are challenging our publication system. The size of the community (and the number of submissions) is growing; the global landscape of scientific publishing is changing; many funding agencies are demanding open access; environmental concerns are affecting the participation to conferences…
Some changes have already been made to our publication system over the last ten years: FSE and CHES have moved to journal publications with (non-necessarily mandatory) presentation at the conference; the new “IACR Communications in Cryptology” journal has recently been launched; the RWC symposium without proceedings has been initiated.
But we need a higher-level discussion to agree on the publication system we want as a scientific community, taking into account the respective interests of authors, reviewers and readers.
The panel discussion will be centered around the following (broad) topics:
- How can the quality of publications be controlled and improved? How can we improve the reviewing process in a way that benefits authors, reviewers and readers?
- What business and funding models do we want for our publications?
- What is the purpose (and possible formats) of our conferences?
References
- Presentation slides
- Acceptance rates on IACR publications
- Open access for Journal of Cryptology
- Open access for LNCS papers
- ACM Open access policy
- Previous proposals on changes to IACR publishing
- Contact us via email at publish-panel at iacr.org
Academic studies of peer review
- Ware report on academic publishing
- An Overview of Challenges, Experiments, and Computational Solutions in Peer Review, by Nihar B. Shah
- NeurIPs report on peer review consistency
- Arbitrariness in the peer review process
- Limitations of our understanding of peer review, by Jonathan P. Tennant and Tony Ross-Hellauer
- Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review