[cap-talk] "ACLs don't" paper rejected from Oakland 09

Toby Murray toby.murray at comlab.ox.ac.uk
Thu Jan 29 03:48:36 EST 2009

On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 00:04 -0800, David Wagner wrote:
> Your paper seems to me like the kind of paper that academic conferences
> are likely to be reluctant to publish, or that it will be difficult for
> them to publish.

I agree totally with David's sentiments here regarding the difficulty of
publishing these kinds of papers, which are of course incredibly
valuable, simply because it is harder to judge their merits objectively.
(c.f. the reviews back from the "Capability Myths Demolished" paper that
are archived on cap-talk:
http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2003-March/001133.html )

I'd second his sentiments that the only way to proceed is on the
assumption that the standpoint from which those reviewers who obviously
didn't get it are coming from is valid and is likely held by much of
your audience.

Identifying the fundamental differences in assumption or interpretation
that lead the reviewers to misunderstand your arguments is incredibly
valuable. MarkM has said
( http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2006-December/006011.html )that doing so led him to write "Paradigm Regained" which, I'd argue, without, there would be no "Robust Composition" etc. 

This doesn't prevent rejection from being emotionally demoralising,



More information about the cap-talk mailing list