What's particularly galling about computer science publishing, is that our papers are some of the hardest to reproduce. I read too many papers where the idea sounds cool but I have no idea how to reproduce it. What's senseless is, I shouldn't even need to work to reproduce their experiment. We have a perfect, unchanging laboratory (a computer) and the most advanced language for discussing our experiments (programming languages), and we shrink our argument to 15 slices of dead tree.
Computer Science is one of the places where dead tree publication is going the way of the dodo pretty soon I think.
Results can come very fast, and one of the top journals can take 18+ months to review and publish an article.
Computer Science is one of the places where dead tree publication is going the way of the dodo pretty soon I think.
The flag day for this, as alluded to in another thread, will be when fund-raising and faculty appointments stop being closely tied with dead tree publications. There's been ample time for that transition to happen, but not all the interested parties seem so motivated to change things.
I did not exactly mean it like that. You see more and more magazines and journals offering their accepted publications online first.
It will not be long before that will become the main mode of how people learn about these articles.
http://friendfeed.com/science-2-0
What field are you in?