[HN Gopher] Reversing the fossilization of computer science conf...
___________________________________________________________________
Reversing the fossilization of computer science conferences
Author : tosh
Score : 74 points
Date : 2025-04-28 07:17 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cacm.acm.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (cacm.acm.org)
| jltsiren wrote:
| Note how the author talks about "main conferences", "major
| conferences", and "top conferences". That's the root issue.
| Whenever there is prestige available, people will compete for it.
| And if you have a competition, you should formalize the rules to
| make it fair.
|
| When I was doing PhD ~15 years ago, I noticed that I rarely cited
| work that appeared in the top conferences of the subfield. Those
| conferences covered so wide range of topics that often only 1 or
| 2 papers were in the same subsubfield as me. And even those were
| often not directly relevant to my work.
|
| But then there were small specialized conferences that had plenty
| of interesting papers every year. I left CS for another field a
| decade ago, but I still regularly attend some of those
| conferences and review for them. The papers published in them are
| still interesting and relevant to my work.
| auggierose wrote:
| What are you doing now?
| jltsiren wrote:
| I could say algorithmic bioinformatics, but that's not really
| correct. The center of mass may be there, but the actual work
| varies from theoretical computer science to genomics.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| A big part of the problem here is that Universities have
| increasingly begun attaching prestige to specific "top"
| conference publications for both ranking and faculty promotions.
| A good example of the phenomenon can be seen in [1] (sorry for
| the noun-citation!) which only gives credit for approximately
| three conferences in each field. Combine this with a flood of new
| researchers entering CS, you have a recipe for "top" conferences
| being essentially destroyed and filled with uninspired work.
|
| (And contrary to the joke in the article, even your own work
| becomes uninspired when you ship it to those conferences. You
| can't afford to be quirky or interesting.)
|
| Fortunately every field has a fourth or fifth-tier conference
| that isn't on this list (or a specialized topic conference that
| the rankings folks don't care about), and those still serve the
| purposes that conferences were made for. You just might not be
| able to convince a ranking-obsessed administrator that your work
| has any value if you publish there.
|
| [1] https://csrankings.org/
| cscheid wrote:
| (I imagine you agree, so this is just to expand) a secondary,
| insidious issue is that administrators diffuse their rules
| through the bureaucracy. In the case of CS, you start seeing
| references to csrankings in recommendation letters for grad
| applications, faculty applications, or even tenure letters. At
| that point, it can be hard to fight against it.
| dynm wrote:
| I think the example of how to "correctly" cite a paper actually
| makes this issue seem smaller than it is. In reality, these
| conferences have very complicated (and unstated) "rules" for how
| a paper is supposed to look. If an "outsider" wanders in and
| submits a paper with new ideas, it will be very obvious that they
| are not a "member of the community" and their paper will usually
| be treated much more harshly as a result. This adds a _huge_
| amount of friction to research.
|
| And what's particularly frustrating is that many organizers will
| try to combat this by writing papers saying they "particularly
| encourage" papers that are interdisciplinary, or focused on less
| fashionable topics, etc. It's good that they are trying to change
| things, but I think the main effect in practice is to encourage
| people to spend their time writing papers that have little chance
| of being accepted.
|
| This issue isn't at all unique to computer science, though. Try
| publishing a paper in a top economics journal as an outsider!
| lou1306 wrote:
| Adding to the frustration, (the lack of) these shibboleths
| partially undermine double-blind reviewing, which is on the
| rise in prestigious conferences. A reviewer from the in-group
| may immediately spot that a submission comes from the out-
| group.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| I am fairly certain this rule was there against an obnoxious
| citing style of "The lambda calculus [1] was intended as a
| foundation for mathematics". It is especially obnoxious in the
| case of CS because when you cite e.g. "as Johns comments in his
| article about future developments of the programming languages
| [1963a]" it is quite important to know that this paper is
| actually from 1963 and can be mostly disregarded except as a
| historic curiosity; yet I've seen people vehemently defending
| this "[1]" style.
| mnky9800n wrote:
| The only time I like numbers is writing proposals and I only
| like it because it saves space. Other than that I much prefer
| (name, year) if I am to have a preference at all.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| Is citation style really an issue? Even if they don't state
| which style they expect, surely you can tell their expected
| style from their existing publications? With proper tooling
| (e.g. LaTeX+BibTeX) it's pretty painless to switch styles.
| Joker_vD wrote:
| Here's that rant of a blog from D.J. Bernstein [0] about
| how "[3, 7, 42]" citation style is superior and promotes
| scientific progress that I was thinking about when I wrote
| my comment. I personally find most of his reasoning pretty
| unconvincing; and so while I understand Meyer's irritation,
| I have to say I have to side with OOPSLA here. After all,
| you'd also probably want the submitted papers to be written
| in somewhat better than 5th-grade-high-school-student's
| English, and don't have way too many typos (I talk like ~15
| typos per page).
|
| [0] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20240612-bibkeys.html, previously
| discussed on HN here [1].
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40662056
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| Opinions vary on citation styles, my point was that it
| seems reasonable for a publication to standardise on one
| citation style, i.e. to require its use. I'm not sure
| it's what dynm meant by _very complicated (and unstated)
| "rules" for how a paper is supposed to look_. That
| article by DJB mentions that every author really ought to
| be using a citation-management solution like BibTeX, so
| that regardless of your preferences, it's easy to change
| your whole paper to a different citation style.
|
| There's a slight (but only slight) irony in your use of
| the HackerNews convention for handling multiple links
| without breaking up the body of the main text. In this
| short-form medium it works great. I see someone made this
| same point in the thread you linked, at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40673426
| dynm wrote:
| By complicated and unstated rules, I meant sort of norms
| about how you talk about previous work, how you caption
| figures, what order you have for the sections, how self-
| congratulatory vs. humble you are, etc. Theoretically,
| there are no rules for these things. But in practice,
| insiders seem to adopt a (deliberately?) complex ruleset
| and use it to signal to each other that they insiders.
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| A great link nugget from the article:
| https://wp.doc.ic.ac.uk/cairesfe/wp-content/uploads/sites/80... -
| a parody on how some historically very significant papers might
| be rejected in today's system. made me chuckle a lot
| zoobab wrote:
| The publication of scientific papers is broken too:
|
| 1. authors that just reviewed the paper, did not do anything
| substential 2. papers that do not ship with working code 3.
| papers that are meaningless
| mnky9800n wrote:
| Yes papers not having working code is very annoying and anti
| intellectual. I wrote a substack about this recently because I
| review a lot of papers that essentially are trash because the
| authors do not provide working codes:
|
| https://open.substack.com/pub/mnky9800n/p/how-to-format-code...
| red_admiral wrote:
| Unfortunately it's becoming an increasing problem that travel is
| not equally safe depending on your nationality, destination, and
| other factors. CRYPTO, the annual "S-tier" conference in
| California, has already let people attend virtually online, and
| is considering its options for next year.
|
| Any conference that announces itself as being proudly diverse and
| inclusive will have to have some difficult board meetings this
| year. It's not just the US, there's several countries in Europe
| that need a closer look at too. I hear Canada and the Nordic
| countries are fairly safe.
|
| The whole show up to conferences internationally to network and
| put attendace on your CV thing is also not great for people
| looking after children, among others.
|
| In practice if you want discussion and citation for your
| cryptography paper, it has to go on IACR eprint at some point.
| Being published in CRYPTO is still a major endorsement, but not
| the way people actually get hold of a copy these days.
| graemep wrote:
| > Unfortunately it's becoming an increasing problem that travel
| is not equally safe depending on your nationality, destination,
| and other factors.
|
| It seems to get a lot more attention now that people from a
| different type of country are getting affected.
|
| > Any conference that announces itself as being proudly diverse
| and inclusive will have to have some difficult board meetings
| this year. It's not just the US, there's several countries in
| Europe that need a closer look at too. I hear Canada and the
| Nordic countries are fairly safe.
|
| Do you mean safe for individuals or a choice of venue?
|
| In the UK (which is the country I know best) individuals are
| fine once they get a visa, but its not a safe choice in terms
| of planning because the granting of visas for people from
| certain countries is unpredictable (so people you expect to be
| able to attend might not be allowed to).
| red_admiral wrote:
| Safe for individuals, mainly.
|
| The UK right now is also trying to figure out who can use
| what bathrooms. I don't understand the details myself.
| graemep wrote:
| The legal question (that was settled by a recent case) was
| whether the word woman in existing legislation includes
| transwomen. The particular case was primarily whether
| transwomen could qualify for preference given to women for
| certain posts "on the boards of certain public authorities
| in Scotland".
|
| https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0042
|
| The toilets things getting the publicity is more a matter
| of the media being obsessed with that aspect of it.
| Obviously there are implications for that, but also for
| many other things.
| red_admiral wrote:
| The EHRC [1] (Equality and Human Rights Commission) has
| issued guidance [2] that suggests public toilets could be
| affected. In practice I think life will go on as usual in
| any organisation that's not explicitly anti-trans, but
| there's a risk that someone will make a statement by
| suing a venue for sex discrimination.
|
| As far as I know, the judgement affects much wider issues
| than just the women's "quota" on boardrooms in Scotland.
| It seems like a lot of major employers and their lawyers
| are trying to understand the implications and promising
| they'll have a update for everyone "soon".
|
| [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/equality-
| and-hum... [2] https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-
| centre/interim-upd...
| bobalob wrote:
| Bathrooms are only a small part of this.
|
| The Supreme Court ruling will also ensure that males are
| not present in women's prisons, women's hospital wards,
| women's sports, domestic violence refuges for women, and
| many other spaces designated as being single-sex.
|
| It also confirms that, in law, sexual orientation is
| defined in terms of sex. One of the intervenors in the case
| included lesbian groups who were concerned that legal
| recognition of the rights of lesbian women would be
| rendered meaningless if heterosexual males could simply
| identify as such.
|
| As for bathrooms, they are one of the few facilities for
| which access is based on trust. The activists who insist
| that they're going to use opposite-sex bathrooms regardless
| of what the law says are confirming that they can't be
| trusted to respect boundaries and stay out. Which says a
| lot really.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I'm not sure that it says what you think it says. It
| seems to equally apply to the trustworthiness of people
| like Rosa Parks.
| bobalob wrote:
| How so? Are you suggesting that the civil rights of males
| are being violated when they're told that female-only
| spaces are off-limits?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I'm merely following the logic of your argument, that
| people who violate rules demonstrate untrustworthiness
| and a lack of respect for boundaries; you did not specify
| an exception for those people whose civil rights are
| being infringed by those rules.
|
| Are you saying that it's fair to extend such an
| exception?
| bobalob wrote:
| You're taking part of my comment and ignoring the context
| in which it was written.
| thomasfedb wrote:
| I think you should expect to have your arguments
| deconstructed on HN.
| grunder_advice wrote:
| In AI/ML job ads it is quite typical for the requirements to
| include, "must have published at top AI conferences include but
| not limited to NeuroIPS, ICML, ICLR, ...etc", which I find
| completely crazy, because it just incentivizes grad students to
| publish rubbish papers to have on their CV, and indeed most
| conference papers in AI/ML are complete rubbish, because it is
| trivial to take any architecture and any corresponding benchmark,
| tweak the architecture slightly and publish a paper. Even dud
| results are published as "promising". It's just a complete
| shitshow, and as somebody who is in the field it feels as though
| you cannot even complain because people get offended. You're just
| supposed to keep spinning the hamster wheel without posing any
| hard questions. Moreover, having published at top conferences
| does not prove that somebody is going to be a good ML Engineer.
| It just proves that somebody knows how to write a compelling
| conference paper, which is a completely different skill set
| altogether.
| ash-ali wrote:
| imo its a little more difficult to publish at these conferences
| using: "take any architecture and any corresponding benchmark,
| tweak the architecture slightly and publish a paper". at t2-t3
| conferences ... sure.
| zero_k wrote:
| The main issue I see is that papers are actually becoming so
| focussed on form that they are now unreadable. People prefer
| reading my blog for my papers than reading the papers themselves.
| In fact I hear people telling me they understood the blog
| _better_. The whole academic writing shtick has become so obtuse
| that not only writing is cumbersome, but so is reading.
|
| The other side of all this academic brownie points via papers
| (and doing reviews, which has become "brownie points for
| gatekeeping") is that most academic software is not only
| unmaintained, but actually unusable. They rarely even compile,
| and if they do, there is no --help, no good defaults, no README,
| and no way to maintain them. They are single-use software and
| their singular use is to write the paper. Any other use-case is
| almost frowned upon.
|
| One of the worst parts of Academic software is that if you re-
| write it in a ways that's actually usable and extensible, you
| can't publish that -- it's not new ("research") work. And you
| will not only have to cite the person who wrote the first useless
| version forever, but they will claim they have done it if your
| tool actually takes off.
|
| BTW, there are academics who don't follow this trend. I am glad
| that in my field (SAT), some of the best, e.g. Armin Biere and
| Randal Bryant are not like this at all. Their software is
| insanely nice and they fix bugs many-many years after release.
| Notice that they are also incredibly good engineers.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| there is only 1 implementation available for an algorithm on
| which i did part of my bs internship, and it uses a lot of
| harcoding. It of course makes benchmarking and extending it
| much, much harder if you want to change some things
|
| examples here
| https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AIBM%2FFedMA%20hard&type=c...
|
| these hard coded parts are not easily adjustable
| bluGill wrote:
| Unfortunately academic resource doesn't seem to be focused on
| the hard problems of today. A fast algorithm is nice, but we
| need to be able to maintain code long term, understand code,
| and fix bugs. I have 15 million lines of code I'm supposed to
| maintain and I know many others reading this work on larger
| projects. There is no way one human can write that much
| software. There is no way we can afford to throw it away even
| if there is a better way (well we could, but based on the last
| time we did that the cost would be over 1 billion dollars and 8
| years - not a useful investment since there is no reason to
| think anything will make those prices go down). We need to keep
| it working.
|
| This is a shock to many of our leaders - who were writing 8 bit
| assembly to do similar things. They commonly did throw away all
| the work of the last version since it only took them a few
| months to rewrite it for the exact features they needed.
| (having experience because they wrote it just a year ago means
| the rewrite as much faster, and the limitations of 8 bit means
| it was worth rewriting since they had to remove one feature to
| add a new one).
| rtkwe wrote:
| That's not a part of computer science that's organizational
| and process management at that point not computer science so
| I'm not shocked CS academics aren't interested in it. You're
| looking at the wrong group to answer your question, we have a
| great amount of discussion about how to organize large
| software to make it manageable already too but most of it
| comes down to breaking it into more manageable chunks with
| defined interfaces and testing that interface thoroughly.
| bluGill wrote:
| Fir enough if the other group was looking at it but they
| are not from what I can tell.
|
| ane frankly CS without those skills is useless for the
| reason I was replying to. If they cannot make
| readable/maintainable code they need to get a different
| job.
| rtkwe wrote:
| There's loads of space in a CS career where you'll never
| get anywhere near responsibility for a hundred thousand
| much less multiple millions of lines of code at once.
|
| And there are already loads of advice out there about how
| to organize and manage huge code bases. It's usually
| consultancy based for anything but the broadest ideas
| though because it's so specific to the particular
| situation. An architecture is as much defined by the
| application it's built for as it is by what people would
| like to impose on it for convenience.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| Not to mention, academia likes to think it is isolated from
| the real world, which is advertising and marketing all the
| way down. We should probably mint more dual CS and marketing
| majors.
| jrmg wrote:
| What's stopping you from writing papers in the style of your
| blog posts (this is an actual question, not a 'why don't you
| just...')
| detaro wrote:
| That reviewers tend to not like papers that aren't written
| like papers.
| Eridrus wrote:
| Reviewers.
|
| Even small deviations from academic style get negative
| responses from reviewers.
| bjourne wrote:
| > In fact I hear people telling me they understood the blog
| _better_. The whole academic writing shtick has become so
| obtuse that not only writing is cumbersome, but so is reading.
|
| Legible writing has little incentive. You can write in a simple
| down-to-earth manner and risk having someone objecting "Your
| work is isomorphic to X, done years ago." Your counter-
| objection, "Well, X is so incomprehensible that no one had any
| chance of understanding it", will fall flat. Better not risk
| it, write in an obtuse form and withhold the source code.
| HdS84 wrote:
| I've studied political science in Germany. Unfortunately,
| most German political science people confused opaque writing
| with wisdom - basically hiding invalid theory behind an
| obtuse language. Nobody wanted to say out loud that they
| don't understand the language, so it helped to fortify their
| shit theories.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| While there is a lot of bullshit hidden behind obtuse
| language, I would claim that in Germany there is a very
| different culture around what is a "good, clear academic
| text".
|
| When I see HN discussions, in the USA, it seems to be that
| simple, clear explanations are something to be cherished.
| On the other hand, in Germany, the academic ideal is to use
| terms _that describe things as precisely and exactly as
| possible_.
|
| In other words:
|
| - in the USA "clarity" means "describing things as simple
| and "understandable" (for less educated people) as
| possible".
|
| - In Germany (in particular humanities academia) "clarity"
| means "describing things in the most precise ('clear' in
| the sense of 'minimal risk of misunderstanding') terms as
| possible. You may assume that the reader is either
| sufficiently educated to know these specialist terms or
| take a serious effort to learn them".
|
| Thus, the expectations what "clarity" means in academic
| texts are very different between these countries.
| anon291 wrote:
| Exactly. The format is wrong. The expectation of publication in
| a journal in the way that they are formatted today is not good.
| At one point, an aspiring PhD student used a novel technique
| from a library I wrote and published on GitHub. The student
| cited my library as an example of the technique out in the
| wild, but claimed that he invented it. This is easily
| falsifiable by the GitHub history, but because there's no
| scientific paper, apparently this is fine by the journal. Not
| that I really care because for me, it's NBD, but I think it
| shows how myopic, isolated, and simply silly the whole
| scientific publishing industry is, especially in CS.
| relaxing wrote:
| The reason behind the citation style is to serve the automated
| parsing of citations by research information systems, which can
| then roll up all of your contributions to the field into a single
| score which determines one's entire worth in academia.
|
| The author really should have recognized this, as it serves his
| point about careerism and brownie points.
|
| The idea that being forced into a citation style stifles
| innovation is hilarious, especially coming from a computer
| scientist - formal systems are all we do. It's not so hard, is
| it? Use a citation manager and have them generated for you!
| mehulashah wrote:
| There's a larger problem here beyond careerization that is going
| unsaid. People are using these metrics as an assessment of their
| self worth. I've had top researchers point out that such and such
| publication was accepted in the industrial track vs research
| track, and how important it was to keep that flag in the
| bibliographical data, even well after publication in a top
| conference. Most papers research or industrial stay in obscurity.
| The truly novel ones will catch like wildfire. The metricization
| of research and academic standing is the underlying culprit.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > The truly novel ones will catch like wildfire.
|
| This doesn't always happen; there are many historical examples
| where the first publication of an idea or technology goes
| unnoticed, often for many years, until someone better-
| positioned re-invents the same thing.
| jp57 wrote:
| When I started my PhD in CS/AI in the late 90s, my department's
| AI faculty was already telling us, "at the major conferences, all
| the action is in the workshops." And this was my experience, the
| workshops were indeed where you found the most engaging
| experiences and interesting new things.
|
| Meanwhile the work at the main at the main conference of AAAI or
| ICML was much farther along, and the value of having it presented
| at a conference, rather than a journal, was minimal. The
| conventional wisdom was, "the talk is just an advertisement for
| the paper."
| ModernMech wrote:
| Pretty funny OOPSLA/SPLASH is the first example given because
| that's _exactly_ the conference that came to mind when I clicked
| to read the article.
|
| Honestly though, I find much better luck in the workshops. They
| don't really have the same reach as the main conference, and the
| specificity of the topics means that the reviewers are usually
| much more focused on _content_ rather than checking boxes. They
| want to make a good workshop for the attendees, so it 's far more
| important for workshops to focus on actual content rather than
| the resume building activities. The LIVE workshop for instance
| doesn't even really require a paper:
| https://2024.splashcon.org/home/live-2024#Call-for-Submissio...
|
| Other workshops require just an extended abstract. Or maybe a
| short paper that doesn't have to be archived. I find these venues
| easier to get into, easier to present at, and easier to have a
| good discussion with the attendees.
| fitzn wrote:
| This article resonated with me and puts into words some of the
| feelings I had towards the end of my PhD. This part:
|
| > An interesting case in software engineering is dismissal for
| lack of "evaluation." It would be, of course, ridiculous to deny
| the benefits that the emphasis on systematic empirical
| measurement has brought to software engineering in the last three
| decades. But it has become difficult today to publish conceptual
| work not yet backed by systematic quantitative studies.
|
| struck a chord with me. The top-tier CS systems conferences for
| me (OSDI and SOSP) have gotten to the point where you basically
| have to be writing the paper about the system you built at a
| FAANG that serves 1B users daily to get accepted.
|
| It's hard for a novel idea and first-cut implementation to
| compete with systems built over many years with a team of a dozen
| software engineers. Obviously, those big systems deserve tons of
| credit and it's amazing that Big Tech publishes those papers!
| Credit to them. But it's also the case that novel ideas with an
| implementation that hasn't seen 1B users yet still have value.
|
| I suppose the argument is that workshops serve that purpose of
| novel ideas with unproven implementation. There's some truth to
| that, but as the article highlights, the full conference papers
| are the real currency.
| sitkack wrote:
| 1) Increase page length maximums, 10 pages is too low to explain
| something. I am looking directly at you IEEE.
|
| 2) Record and post all of the conferences, ACM is doing great
| strides here, but many many conferences aren't even recorded.
|
| 3) Reduce the paywalls and the access to all information, again I
| want to really support the ACM here, but the conferences that
| aren't broadcast for free (and also aren't recorded) are also the
| ones that are hella expensive and you have to attend in person
| (making them 5x as expensive with travel and lodging). Provide a
| happy medium, $300 for remote attendance? Delay publishing of the
| recordings (just post them raw) by 12 weeks?
|
| The collaboration mediums should scale with the number of folks
| in the population. The venue stays the same but you 10x the
| input, lots of great people and great research is going to get
| broken.
| kenjackson wrote:
| The article says that Attention is All You Need wasn't published
| in a "standard" conference, but wasn't it published in NIPS? Did
| I misread the article?
| samth wrote:
| This article is mostly whining that evidence-free speculation
| about how to write good software is no longer publishable in top
| conferences. And the major evidence cited is that there's a
| specific citation style required, a standard feature of every
| kind of publishing since forever. I promise (having reviewed many
| times for the specific conference under discussion) that no one's
| paper is rejected (or even denigrated) for failing to use
| appropriate citation style, people comment on it the same way
| they would comment on any other style issue.
| denotational wrote:
| I think that's a pretty uncharitable take; I thought there were
| several interesting questions raised by the author:
|
| 1. Should conference "service" be something we expect of
| postdocs (and even PhD candidates) rather than established
| experts?
|
| > Often, as a result, the PC is staffed by junior, ambitious
| academics intent on filling their resumes. Note that it does
| not matter for these resumes whether the person did a good or
| bad job as a referee! [...] I very much doubt that the
| submissions of Einstein, Curie, Planck, and such to the Solvay
| conferences were assessed by postdocs. Top conferences should
| be the responsibility of the established leaders in the field.
|
| 2. Should programme chairs strive to maintain exclusivity of
| their conference track, or look for important ideas that
| deserve to be communicated?
|
| > As a simple example, consider a paper that introduces a new
| concept, but does not completely work out its implications and
| has a number of imperfections. In the careerist view, it is
| normal to reject it as not ready for full endorsement. In the
| scientific view, the question for the program committee (PC)
| becomes: is the idea important enough to warrant publication
| even if it still has rough edges? The answer may well be yes.
| [...] Since top conferences boast of their high rejection
| rates, typically 80% to 90%, referees must look for reasons to
| reject the papers in their pile rather than arguments for
| accepting them.
|
| 3. Is computer science suffering from a focus on orthopraxy
| rather than scientific method?
|
| > What threatens to make conferences irrelevant is a specific
| case of the general phenomenon of bureaucratization of science.
| Some of the bureaucratization process is inevitable: research
| no longer involves a few thousand elite members in a dozen
| countries (as it did before the mid-1900s), but is a global
| academic and industry business drawing in enormous amounts of
| money and millions of players for whom a publication is not
| just an opportunity to share their latest results, but a career
| step.
|
| What do you think about these?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-28 23:01 UTC)