The Second Lives of Rejected Papers

This is a set of questions to poke some gentle fun at SIGCOMM and other network research conferences, and to make some serious observations in the process:

In that spirit, I are asking the question below.
[Note that I am asking this question as someone who has played all sides of the SIGCOMM process. Not only have I had papers rejected by SIGCOMM, but I have had papers accepted as well. I have been on the SIGCOMM Program Committee many times, and have been a SIGCOMM Program Co-Chair, and a SIGCOMM Vice-Chair, and am current chair of the SIGCOMM Technical Advisory Committee responsible for giving advice on matters such as SIGCOMM procedures. I have spent a fair amount of time trying to maintain and improve the quality of the SIGCOMM reviewing process.]

(1) If you have ever had a paper of yours rejected by a networking conference, what was your favorite paper of yours that was rejected, so far?


Follow-up questions:
(2) Did the reviews, in your view, lead you to improve the paper?
(3) What was your least favourite paper of yours that was accepted by the same conference, so far?

Thought question for reviewers and program committee members:
(4) What is the conference submission that, in retrospect, you most regret having given a negative review? a positive review?

Papers on the fallibility of human judgement and built-in biases in the peer review process:
Note: the two PDF articles above are rotated 90 degrees, so to read them without printing them out, you might have to convert them to postscript and rotate...
Return to [ Sally Floyd].
Last modified: April 2002