Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Flyer for IEEE 802 Student Paper Contest

Thanks, James.

Regarding the topics, I get the idea that you think it's too late to add a new one. I suggest you keep an old one; namely, "New ideas for standards or amendments." That one was on the topic list that you showed the EC in July (ec-15-0060-01) and in the motion scheduled for the 6 October EC telecon (ec-15-0060-02). My understanding of the proposal was that this would be one of the topics.

Regarding publication, I'm not sure that I was clear in my comment, so let me try again. The flyer indicates that the first three prizes come with "publication." It also says that the winning papers and presentations will be "published" on mentor. Are these two usages talking about the same thing? If so, then I think it's saying that the 4th-10th place documents are not posted to mentor. My view is that all the winners, and certainly anything that is presented, should be posted.

If, on the other hand, "publication" does not mean "posted to mentor," then it would be better to say "posted" to mentor instead of "published" to mentor, to avoid confusing the academics whose understanding of "publication" accords with your description. But, if that's the case, then I have a deeper concern, because it seems to promise that the paper will be formally published somewhere. Given that we don't control a publication medium, how can we make a commitment to that? I'm very concerned about overpromising on this and would rather delete the "Publication" column that risk that letdown.


James P. K. Gilb wrote:

(1) We worked on the list of topics in July and again in September. There was an open call for contributions and this is the list we came up with. Perhaps we can add yours next time.

(2) I would be happy to review any more explicit rules that you could provide. We can put them on the web site that goes with the contest.

(3) We want sufficient technical content. The group felt that 5-7 pages would be sufficient.

(4) Publication here refers to submitting it for publication in one of the IEEE magazines (e.g., Potentials, Communications Society Magazine, etc.). In academia, publication refers to this, not simply posting on a web site.

(5) "grants" would be an improvement.

Thanks for the feedback.

James Gilb

On 11/05/2015 08:51 AM, Roger Marks wrote:
Tim and James,

Thanks for all the work. This looks like it could be a really nice

I have a few comments:

(1) I think that the list of topics is a little confusing. At the
beginning and end of the list, we have some wide-open topics. In the
middle, we have two very narrow topics that many people won't even
understand. (And one refers to IEE instead of IEEE).

I guess that's OK in general, though it's not my personal preference.
However, I would really like one addition to the list:

-Innovative technology for IEEE 802 standardization

This would be an opening for someone to suggest a new idea that could be
the basis of a new standard. To me, something interesting in that area
could be one of the primary benefits of the program for 802, and I don't
see it covered by the current list.

(2) More explicit rules would help the author, and also the reviewers
(who will already have a tough time comparing due to the wide range of
topics).These don't need to be on the flyer, but we could point to a web
site. The key missing pieces I see are:
-An optional template, which is particularly useful because we are
probably looking for a format that is unlike what we usually expect to
see as a contribution, so people may be confused. See, for example:

-A view regarding whether the material could be submitted to an IEEE
journal without violating IEEE self-plagiarism policies.

(3) I think it would be better to delete "(not including figures)". 7
pages is way more than anyone could present in a meeting.

(4) I don't understand the last column of the table: it says that these
papers would be presented but not published, though publication simply
means posting the material to mentor. To me, it's very odd, and
counterproductive, to have documents presented to 802 that are not
available. In my opinion, therefore, the lower right corner of the table
should have a check.

(5) I think that "grant" should be "grants" in the headline.


Tim Godfrey wrote:
EC Members,

The attached flyer for the contest has been prepared by Tara Gallus at
IEEE.  James and I reviewed it, and the details are consistent with
the EC presentation/proposal presented in July. The plan is to
announce the contest next week. This version is close to final - the
only outstanding change is the email address for submission. That will
be shortened to "" due to length limitations
for IEEE aliases.


Tim Godfrey
mobile 913-706-3777

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.