Importantly, the 6-month-to-a-year conference cycle does not work for our field. Speed of sharing & iteration defines the speed of science
Submitting 5-page papers, waiting 6 months then physically meeting in one building to discuss results, looks like absurdist comedy in 2017
-
-
That is what exactly happens when (wrong) management expectations overhealm reason and observations. Problem is: they do not understand.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wholeheartedly agree! I love vintage stuff, but not vintage processes. How would you change this?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And yet even that is faster than most fields. I suspect peer review primarily serves the interests of the guild, not science, at this point.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And yet even that is faster than most fields. I suspect the current process primarily serves the interests of the guild, not science.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and we don't mention journal submissions where it is possible to have paper printed one or two years after. Just for record?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sometimes, especially in low-level conferences, it feels like it's just an excuse for people in academia to get funding and travel for free
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Curious. How do you choose the papers you read? By the author?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
was thinking the same for CVPR17... hope next year is closer
#saltyThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.