Skip to main content

Going Green with Electronic Proceedings

We're looking into the options for publishing the proceedings for SenSys 2009 (which I'm co-chairing with Jie Liu). Sensys is an ACM conference and traditionally has had a printed proceedings. I'm interested in what people think about an all-electronic (that is, online) proceedings, with no printed copies or CD-ROMs. The idea would be to put the PDFs on the conference website and ensure that they are archived by the ACM Digital Library. (Assuming, of course, that ACM would allow this -- I haven't looked into their policies.)

SenSys is an ACM conference, and has traditionally had printed proceedings. As anyone who has been a conference organizer knows, this can often be a cumbersome and slow process, requiring many weeks of lead time from the publisher, and quite a lot of work on the part of the authors and the publications chair. This also shortens the time available for paper shepherding. Going the traditional route also incurs a nontrivial cost which is passed down to every conference attendee, whether they want the printed book or not. Finally, there is an environmental cost to all those dead trees that never get read, and to physically ship out the proceedings to all of the SIG members.

Personally, I don't have a need for printed proceedings. I get my papers online, through Google or the ACM DL. I realize there are still plenty of people who want to hold a physical paper in their hands, which is what printers are for -- indeed, if we put the PDFs online a week or so before the conference, anyone who wants to flip through the papers physically could print them out themselves and bring them to the conference. Printed proceedings seem to me to be a holdover from the time when scientific literature was chiefly distributed through printed books and journals archived in libraries. That is not the reality today. Many journals have now gone all-electronic, so it seems odd to me that a conference could not go the same route.

At the same time, I realize there are some (real or perceived) downsides to electronic-only proceedings. There is a question about whether it really constitutes a "publication," and I have heard that some institutions in Europe and Asia expect a printed proceedings in order for a paper to "count." (I have no hard evidence of this so would like to learn more.) The copyright issue becomes a little sticky, but I think that it would work fine to allow authors to retain copyright in their papers but require that they release them under a Creative Commons license permitting the conference organizers, and ACM, to distribute them. Finally, do electronic-only proceedings diminish the gravitas of a paper being accepted into a major venue? I would hope that those bulky yellow-spined books alone do not impart validity to a conference paper, but you never know.

So, I'm curious to know what others think about going all electronic.


  1. I think the most important thing is that authors retain copyrights and papers are freely available for download. Everything else (amount of work, scheduling, costs, whether there is any kind of printed book) is secondary.

    It is an excellent thing if SenSys follows the example of STACS and other conferences which have switched to open access publishing. I'm interested to hear more about your experience regarding ACM's reactions; it would be nice to have a test case of a major ACM conference that switches to open access publishing.

  2. I think the movement to online-based materials is good overall. I think the main issue with a publication is that it needs to be accessible for people to read and cite. In my opinion, if your work is buried in a conference proceeding that is only available in print, it is less likely to get cited than if it is available electronically. Anyone who teaches these days discovers that reference material not available online does not exist to their students. (That’s a whole other issue entirely!)

    For many years now, the large Lunar and Planetary Science Conference has published a program with 1-sentence talk/poster descriptions, supplied conference goers with a CD-ROM, and archived the abstracts online. (They are available both through the Lunar and Planetary Institute and the Harvard/SAO/NASA Astrophysical Data System). With literally thousands of 2-page abstracts each year, it became a real problem to print a hard, multi-volume abstract tome (literally 6+ inches!). Now, it is easy to find and link to abstracts, and meanwhile, many of the old abstracts have been scanned and added to ADS! (Actually, there are a lot of older full journal articles too that have been released and are available freely on ADS. ADS is fantastic!!)

    LPSC no longer publishes proceedings of the yearly conference. The work presented at the conference is published either through normal journal articles or special issues arranged by conference or theme organizers.

    I have to honestly say that I hardly ever use the LPSC CD-ROMs, but I can see that it would be useful for colleagues (particularly foreign ones) that have tenuous internet access. Before I had easy internet access at home, I did use the CD-ROMs.

    I think that there is some stigma associated with "electronic only" full publications if they come from journals that have different electronic and paper editions. There seems to be an implication that the work was not "good enough" to appear in print on paper. If a journal or proceedings is wholly electronic, then I'd think there'd be no stigma attached. At least for the various longer conference abstracts that I have published, their electronic nature is not a bad thing. In fact, it ensures that I can easily link to my work from my own online reference list, thus ensuring that interested parties can easily access, read, and hopefully cite my work.

  3. I'm a dinosaur. When I sit down with a student, there's nothing better than being able to pull relevant conference papers off my bookshelves in seconds. So I like printed proceedings.

    I also like the serendipity of having 30 articles bound in one volume. Nobody, but nobody, is going to print out all the articles from a proceedings. Printers aren't good enough; Kinko's isn't good enough. I hope will will still see printed proceedings just as we still see printed books.

    On the other hand, dealing with Sheridan is hell. I feel your pain.

  4. A local university press would certainly be happy to produce printed books for those who are interested in buying a copy. You can get a "real" paperback book and it doesn't have to cost that much.

  5. I am not sure if ACM provides any assistance with this, but it is important that the online proceedings have their own ISBN number. At least here in Germany, the univesity administration insists on proceeding ISBN for the paper to be counted in the dissemination metrics.

  6. maria kazandjievaJuly 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM

    as far as distribution at the conference, i'd go with USB sticks rather than CD ROMs.

  7. Perhaps you could partner with some eBook reader maker and subsidize the purchase of said readers for conference attendees who wish it.

  8. We have looked at the ebook and DIY publishing companies, but decided not to go this route for now since it seems to be a lot of overhead to get it published that way. Do you have a suggestion for one?

  9. SIGMOD, which is a big ACM conference, has been electronic only for at least two years now. At the very least, I've attended it the past two years and don't recall even having the option to get printed proceedings. You may wish to contact them to find out how to negotiate the ACM details.

  10. Printed proceedings drive better interactions during the Q&A, at least for me. I usually flip through papers in parallel with a talk to dig deeper or better understand some point or another before asking a silly question about this, that, or the other thing. I recently attended a conference where the proceedings were given out in CD-ROM format, which totally didn't work for me since my laptop doesn't have a CD-ROM drive. I was able to get the proceedings on a USB flash drive, which was great until my battery ran out (only a few outlets were visible in the entire room and I didn't get one of the coveted seats near one). The other thing I noticed was that one my laptop was open and I was reading papers, it didn't take long for me to start to surf, check e-mail, or otherwise get distracted. So, I think printed proceedings are great.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I'm leaving Harvard

The word is out that I have decided to resign my tenured faculty job at Harvard to remain at Google. Obviously this will be a big change in my career, and one that I have spent a tremendous amount of time mulling over the last few months.

Rather than let rumors spread about the reasons for my move, I think I should be pretty direct in explaining my thinking here.

I should say first of all that I'm not leaving because of any problems with Harvard. On the contrary, I love Harvard, and will miss it a lot. The computer science faculty are absolutely top-notch, and the students are the best a professor could ever hope to work with. It is a fantastic environment, very supportive, and full of great people. They were crazy enough to give me tenure, and I feel no small pang of guilt for leaving now. I joined Harvard because it offered the opportunity to make a big impact on a great department at an important school, and I have no regrets about my decision to go there eight years ago. But m…

Rewriting a large production system in Go

My team at Google is wrapping up an effort to rewrite a large production system (almost) entirely in Go. I say "almost" because one component of the system -- a library for transcoding between image formats -- works perfectly well in C++, so we decided to leave it as-is. But the rest of the system is 100% Go, not just wrappers to existing modules in C++ or another language. It's been a fun experience and I thought I'd share some lessons learned.

Why rewrite?

The first question we must answer is why we considered a rewrite in the first place. When we started this project, we adopted an existing C++ based system, which had been developed over the course of a couple of years by two of our sister teams at Google. It's a good system and does its job remarkably well. However, it has been used in several different projects with vastly different goals, leading to a nontrivial accretion of cruft. Over time, it became apparent that for us to continue to innovate rapidly wo…

Running a software team at Google

I'm often asked what my job is like at Google since I left academia. I guess going from tenured professor to software engineer sounds like a big step down. Job titles aside, I'm much happier and more productive in my new role than I was in the 8 years at Harvard, though there are actually a lot of similarities between being a professor and running a software team.

I lead a team at Google's Seattle office which is responsible for a range of projects in the mobile web performance area (for more background on my team's work see my earlier blog post on the topic). One of our projects is the recently-announced data compression proxy support in Chrome Mobile. We also work on the PageSpeed suite of technologies, specifically focusing on mobile web optimization, as well as a bunch of other cool stuff that I can't talk about just yet.

My official job title is just "software engineer," which is the most common (and coveted) role at Google. (I say "coveted&quo…