Scientometrics

, Volume 91, Issue 1, pp 173–184 | Cite as

A decade of database conferences: a look inside the program committees

Article

Abstract

Database management technology has played a vital role in facilitating key advancements of the information technology field. Database researchers—and computer scientists in general—consider prestigious conferences as their favorite and effective tools for presenting their original research study and for getting good publicity. With the main aim of retaining the high quality and the prestige of these conference, program committee members plays the major role of evaluating the submitted articles and deciding which submissions are to be included in the conference programs. In this article, we study the program committees of four top-tier and prestigious database conferences (SIGMOD, VLDB, ICDE, EDBT) over a period of 10 years (2001–2010). We report about the growth in the number of program committee members in comparison to the size of the research community in the last decade. We also analyze the rate of change in the membership of the committees of the different editions of these conferences. Finally, we report about the major contributing scholars in the committees of these conferences as a mean of acknowledging their impact in the community.

Keywords

Database technology Program committees 

References

  1. Agrawal, D., Das, S., & Abbadi, A. E. (2010). Big data and cloud computing: New wine or just new bottles? PVLDB, 3(2), 1647–1648.Google Scholar
  2. Ailamaki, A., Haas, L. M., Jagadish, H. V., Maier, D., Özsu, M. T., & Winslett, M. (2010). Time for our field to grow up. PVLDB, 3(2), 1658.Google Scholar
  3. Aumller, D., & Rahm, E. (2011). Affiliation analysis of database publications. SIGMOD Record, 40(1), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, P. A., DeWitt, D. J., Heuer, A., Ives, Z. G., Jensen, C. S., Meyer, H., et al. (2005). Database publication practices. In Proceedings of the 31st international conference on very large data bases (pp. 1241–1246). Trondheim.Google Scholar
  5. Birman, K., & Schneider, F. B. (2009). Program committee overload in systems. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casati, F., Marchese, M., Ragone, A., & Turrini, M. (2009). Is peer review any good? A quantitative analysis of peer review (Rapport technique N o DISI-09-045). Trento: University of Trento.Google Scholar
  7. Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elmacioglu, E., & Lee, D. (2009). Oracle, where shall I submit my papers? Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Florescu, D. (2004). Database research for the current millennium. In Proceedings 20th international conference on data engineering (p. 866). Boston.Google Scholar
  10. Fortnow, L. (2009). Viewpoint—Time for computer science to grow up. Communications of the ACM, 52(8), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hellerstein, J. M., Chaudhuri, S., & Rosenblum, M. (Eds.). (2010). In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM symposium on cloud computing, SoCC 2010. Indianapolis: ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Hirsch, J. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsu, J., & Huang, D., (2011). Correlation between impact and collaboration. Scientometrics, 86(2), 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mizzaro, S. (2003). Quality control in scholarly publishing: A new proposal. American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(11), 989–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moro, M. M., Braganholo, V. P., Dorneles, C. F., Duarte, D., de Matos Galante, R., & dos Santos Mello, R. (2009). XML: Some papers in a haystack. SIGMOD Record, 38(2), 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ragone, A., Mirylenka, K., Casati, F., & Marchese, M. (2011). A quantitative analysis of peer review. In Proceedings of the 13th conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics (issi). Durban: issi.Google Scholar
  17. Rahm, E., & Thor, A. (2005). Citation analysis of database publications. SIGMOD Record, 34(4), 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sakr, S., & Alomari, M. (2011). A decade of database research publications: A look inside. Scientometrics, 88(2), 521–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snodgrass, R. T. (2003). Journal relevance. SIGMOD Record, 32(3), 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhuang, Z., Elmacioglu, E., Lee, D., & Giles, C. L. (2007). Measuring conference quality by mining program committee characteristics. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 225–234). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National ICT Australia and University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information TechnologiesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations