<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Laure,</div><div><br></div><div>Some additional information below</div><div>(just received)<br></div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div>Giancarlo</div><div><br></div><div><div style="display:inline-block;font-family:arial;padding:4px 0px 5px">
<a href="http://groups.google.com/a/core.edu.au/group/rankings/t/b93f7853f21ae669?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email" style="font-size:21px;color:rgb(17,85,204);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">
Providing additional info for CORE rankings
</a>
</div>
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%">
<tbody><tr><td style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(46,46,46);font-family:arial;padding:10px 15px;border:1px solid rgb(211,211,211)">
<span style="color:rgb(177,176,176);font-size:15px">
Lin Padgham <<a href="mailto:lin.padgham@rmit.edu.au" target="_blank">lin.padgham@rmit.edu.au</a>>: Apr 16 04:19PM +1000
</span>
<br><br>
Dear All,<br>
We have now organised a web interface to submit additional information for<br>
conferences whose ranks are proposed for change, in particular for<br>
conferences where decisions were made based on the limited comparator<br>
data. *The<br>
url is at portal.core/<a href="http://edu.au/conf-changes" target="_blank">edu.au/conf-changes</a> <<a href="http://edu.au/conf-changes" target="_blank">http://edu.au/conf-changes</a>>. All<br>
extra information must be submitted via this process.*<br>
These pages have been adapted from parts of the original full submission<br>
forms, but with everything made optional. Formatting and wording may be<br>
slightly odd as a result. This provides guidance on the data that was<br>
requested from full submissions. Any additional data/information can also<br>
be provided in the final section, either by typing in directly, or<br>
uploading a file.<br>
<br>
Note that as everything (except conference name and submitter) is now<br>
optional, sections B and C will show as completed (green) without any data<br>
being added. You are free to answer whichever questions you wish. The<br>
Google Scholar section can be safely ignored other than provided the GS h5<br>
if it was not in the original submission. The most useful parts to provide<br>
are B2.1, the start of B3, B5 and C.<br>
<br>
Once finished you must hit submit. You will not receive any confirmation<br>
email, but the front page button turning green indicates successful<br>
submission. If after submitting you open for any reason, you will need to<br>
resubmit, even if no changes have been made. Opening automatically<br>
unsubmits.<br>
<br>
In order to help in understanding the somewhat cryptic data report you will<br>
have already received, it is helpful to look at the input form. I provide<br>
also here some of the explanation that was also given to committees<br>
regarding the PC profile figure in reports and the WPP report and excerpts.<br>
<br>
The section (Senior) Program Committee in the reports is a profile of the<br>
PC (or SPC if a large conference with both PC and SPC). This was obtained<br>
by having submitters paste in the PC list from the web, and provide some<br>
structured information about the format. This was then processed by our<br>
system to obtain the Elsevier h-index of individuals, providing the bar<br>
chart profile in the left hand figure. We then extracted the more senior<br>
researchers (above a certain threshold) and requested that this list be fed<br>
into our WPP tool to see where these more established researchers on the PC<br>
were publishing. The right hand figure shows 2 whisker plots: the LHS is<br>
the distribution of the h-index of all PC members, showing amongst other<br>
things the median h-index. The RHS whisker plot is a distribution of those<br>
who were above the threshold - the more established researchers.<br>
<br>
When the list is provided to WPP that tool (based on dblp data) shows where<br>
the individuals in the list are publishing. The data looked at is generally<br>
where else the established researchers on the PC are publishing, and to<br>
what extent they are publishing in the conference they are on the PC of.<br>
The text of the full WPP report is available at the link, while the<br>
relevant graphs and a text excerpt are pasted directly into the report.<br>
Note that the WPP tool has been modified and now has options to provide<br>
journals, conferences, or combined information.<br>
<br>
Committees also had access (in some cases) to data which we have permission<br>
from Elsevier to use by the committees in ranking, but not necessarily to<br>
publicize in its entirety. This data gives an analysis of citations and of<br>
h-index of most senior author on papers, within the context of the specific<br>
FoR code. Methodology here was to obtain for every conference in the CORE<br>
DB (where possible) the data for each paper in 2017. Conferences were then<br>
partitioned into their FoR code areas and citation centiles were calculated<br>
within each area for the top 1%, 5%,10%, 25% and 50%. These were also<br>
calculated for the subset of A/A* conferences within a FoR code. By looking<br>
at the % of papers from a given conference, compared to these centiles (in<br>
particular the A/A* ones), we could then establish how well an individual<br>
conference fit the average A/A* profile for that FoR code.<br>
We used a similar approach to look at the relative strength of those<br>
publishing in a given conference, under the assumption that if many papers<br>
are by strong researchers, it is likely to be a strong venue. For this<br>
calculation each paper was assigned the h-index of its strongest author,<br>
and then centiles were calculated as above. In reports the data most often<br>
referenced is the % of papers in a venue at the 25th A/A* centile. If this<br>
is much lower than 25%, it is attracting fewer authors with a strong<br>
h-index than the average A/A* conference in that FoR code. This analysis<br>
was not available for some conferences at the point that reviews were<br>
processed.<br>
As with all data, this is one piece that must be considered along with<br>
other relevant aspects. Committees attempt to form a holistic view based on<br>
all available information, both objective data and subjective<br>
experience/knowledge.<br>
<br>
We welcome additional data in situations where community members who have<br>
not made a submission on a given conference, consider that they have<br>
additional useful information to add, for consideration by the committee.<br>
This is particularly important in cases where reviews have been conducted<br>
based on more limited comparator data provided by submitters, on<br>
conferences they consider less strong than the submission conference.<br>
<br>
It is important to remember that, to its best knowledge, CORE only includes<br>
conferences that are legitimate academic venues with peer review of full<br>
papers prior to acceptance. Consequently all included venues (including C<br>
and unranked) are considered sound academic events. B conferences are "good<br>
to very good" venues, well regarded in their area, while A is a much<br>
smaller number of venues regarded as excellent. A* is reserved for flagship<br>
conferences in a given area. In general only the most well known top<br>
conference of an area will be considered a flagship. If there are multiple<br>
top conferences in the same area, only the best will be considered a<br>
flagship, unless they are all at about the same level. Not all sub-areas<br>
within a FOR code, will have A* conferences, and it may well be that an A<br>
conference has equally high quality papers as an A*, but has somewhat less<br>
prestige, impact or reach than an A* covering a similar area. Naturally<br>
borders are not well defined and there will always be some disagreement<br>
around the edges. Committees attempt to be as fair and objective as<br>
possible, whilst also avoiding everything percolating to the top.<br>
<br>
*We welcome additional information on proposed changes, due by midnight<br>
25th April AoE.*<br>
*Please make submissions only via the provided interface at<br>
<a href="http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-changes" target="_blank">http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-changes</a><br>
<<a href="http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-changes" target="_blank">http://portal.core.edu.au/conf-changes</a>>.*<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Lin (CORE rankings coordinator)<br>
<br>
Lin Padgham<br>
Professor in Artificial Intelligence<br>
Computer Science, RMIT University<br>
Melbourne, Australia.</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:55 AM Giancarlo Guizzardi <<a href="mailto:gguizzardi@gmail.com">gguizzardi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Laure,</div><div><br></div><div>Sorry for the delay.</div><div>Please find it in the attachment</div><div><br></div><div>best,</div><div>G<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 7:45 PM Laure Vieu <<a href="mailto:vieu@irit.fr" target="_blank">vieu@irit.fr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Dear Giancarlo,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks for this.<br>
</p>
<p>If you've got the attachment, could you please forward it?<br>
(I do not have access to the Google group linked)<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Laure<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>Le 15/04/2021 à 09:04, Guizzardi
Giancarlo a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Dear all,</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Some additional information on CORE</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
best,</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Giancarlo<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span style="display:inline-block;font-family:arial;padding:4px 0px 5px"><a href="http://groups.google.com/a/core.edu.au/group/rankings/t/b93f7853f21ae669?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email" style="font-size:21px;color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">Poviding additional info for CORE
rankings </a></span>
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(46,46,46);font-family:arial;padding:10px 15px;border:1px solid rgb(211,211,211)">
<span style="color:rgb(177,176,176);font-size:15px">Lin Padgham
<<a href="mailto:lin.padgham@rmit.edu.au" target="_blank">lin.padgham@rmit.edu.au</a>>:
Apr 14 07:52PM +1000
</span><br>
<br>
Dear All,<br>
For those wishing to supply additional information for
review of the<br>
currently recommended changes to conferences in the CORE
ranking, I attach<br>
pdfs of 2 sections of the full submission that was
requested for new<br>
conferences, those wishing to be considered for upgrade,
or those listed<br>
for review. These indicate some information which will
be useful to the<br>
committee, particularly for those conferences that were
evaluated on the<br>
basis of a comparator report only.<br>
<br>
I am currently investigating whether we can provide a
web interface for<br>
submission of information (and if we are able to do
that, this will be<br>
compulsory as it greatly assists in getting all the
information into the DB<br>
and out to committees). I will post by the end of the
week regarding how<br>
information should be provided. In the meantime these
attachments provide<br>
some guidance as to what information will be of value.<br>
<br>
I do note that the section D2 where it asks for a list
of at least 20*<br>
top *people<br>
in the area, and a report run through the WPP tool, is
only of value if the<br>
list of people is chosen in a truly objective,
repeatable and verifiable<br>
fashion, and is without implicit or explicit reference
to the conference<br>
being evaluated. If these instructions are not followed,
the report is of<br>
little value in this process.<br>
<br>
Similarly, in section C5, the list of top people
regularly involved in the<br>
conference is only of value if some information is
provided as to why you<br>
consider them a top person in the area, as well as their
google scholar<br>
h-index. Just providing their university affiliation is
of little value.<br>
<br>
Any additional supporting information can also be
provided in any format<br>
desired. However it is important that information is
independently<br>
verifiable data of some sort, and not simply opinions.
While no single type<br>
of data is appropriate as a means of ranking, and a
holistic view must be<br>
sought, there should always be some objective support
for views that<br>
contradict what has been decided on the basis of data
currently reviewed.<br>
<br>
If you are not planning to potentially provide further
information but are<br>
just wanting to know why particular decisions were made,
can i please ask<br>
that you wait until this information is uploaded to the
DB along with the<br>
new rankings. At this stage there will be a more
complete decision report,<br>
accounting for any extra information received. Also, it
is overwhelming for<br>
me to try and respond to everyone, so I would greatly
appreciate patience<br>
until the final reports are uploaded, except for cases
where people feel<br>
that they may be able to contribute additional useful
information.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
lin (CORE rankings coordinator)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Lin Padgham<br>
Professor in Artificial Intelligence<br>
Computer Science, RMIT University<br>
Melbourne, Australia.<br>
ph. +61 3 9925 3214 (but email works better)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="gmail-m_-2433894480098954257gmail-m_5535574259061748947divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Maria
Keet <a href="mailto:mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za" target="_blank"><mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 14, 2021 4:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Anthony Cohn <a href="mailto:A.G.Cohn@leeds.ac.uk" target="_blank"><A.G.Cohn@leeds.ac.uk></a>;
Guizzardi Giancarlo <a href="mailto:Giancarlo.Guizzardi@unibz.it" target="_blank"><Giancarlo.Guizzardi@unibz.it></a>;
Barry Smith <a href="mailto:ifomis@gmail.com" target="_blank"><ifomis@gmail.com></a>; Laure Vieu
<a href="mailto:vieu@irit.fr" target="_blank"><vieu@irit.fr></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nicola Guarino <a href="mailto:guarino@loa.istc.cnr.it" target="_blank"><guarino@loa.istc.cnr.it></a>;
João Paulo Almeida <a href="mailto:jpalmeida@ieee.org" target="_blank"><jpalmeida@ieee.org></a>; John Bateman
<a href="mailto:bateman@uni-bremen.de" target="_blank"><bateman@uni-bremen.de></a>; Stefano Borgo
<a href="mailto:stefano.borgo@cnr.it" target="_blank"><stefano.borgo@cnr.it></a>; Antony Galton
<a href="mailto:A.P.Galton@exeter.ac.uk" target="_blank"><A.P.Galton@exeter.ac.uk></a>; Janna Hastings
<a href="mailto:janna.hastings@gmail.com" target="_blank"><janna.hastings@gmail.com></a>; Heinrich Herre
<a href="mailto:heinrich.herre@imise.uni-leipzig.de" target="_blank"><heinrich.herre@imise.uni-leipzig.de></a>; Werner Kuhn
<a href="mailto:werner.kuhn@gmail.com" target="_blank"><werner.kuhn@gmail.com></a>; Riichiro Mizoguchi
<a href="mailto:mizo@jaist.ac.jp" target="_blank"><mizo@jaist.ac.jp></a>; Mark Musen
<a href="mailto:musen@stanford.edu" target="_blank"><musen@stanford.edu></a>; Leo Obrst
<a href="mailto:lobrst@gmail.com" target="_blank"><lobrst@gmail.com></a>; Barry Smith
<a href="mailto:phismith@buffalo.edu" target="_blank"><phismith@buffalo.edu></a>; Zena Wood
<a href="mailto:Z.M.Wood2@exeter.ac.uk" target="_blank"><Z.M.Wood2@exeter.ac.uk></a>; Roberta Ferrario
<a href="mailto:roberta.ferrario@loa.istc.cnr.it" target="_blank"><roberta.ferrario@loa.istc.cnr.it></a>; Michael Gruninger
<a href="mailto:gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca" target="_blank"><gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca></a>; <a href="mailto:thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch" target="_blank">thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch</a>
<a href="mailto:thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch" target="_blank"><thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch></a>; IAOA Executive Council
<a href="mailto:iaoa-council@ovgu.de" target="_blank"><iaoa-council@ovgu.de></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: FOIS and CORE</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Dear Tony, Giancarlo, All,<br>
<br>
<div>On 14/04/2021 15:45, Anthony Cohn
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p><span>An interesting
discussion and of course I agree it’s worth making a
case against the “demotion”. I agree about the h-index
point – scopus has a notion of “field weighted impact
factor” – which adjusts for the size of the community. I
don’t know if scopus computes this for conferences, but
given the relatively small size of our community this
might be an argument to make?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
agreed, hence the "a need to spin that story better" note in my
email. afaik, it is something that they consider, but I'm not
privy to all those details.<br>
and indeed, it's people beyond the authors' standings and their
repeat participation, including those of the event organisers
and participants, among others.
<br>
but as long as we don't know the reasons by it got downgraded,
it's guesswork why exactly<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Maria<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p><span></span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Best wishes Tony
</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
<div style="border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor blue;border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;border-style:solid none none;border-width:1pt medium medium;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Guizzardi Giancarlo
<a href="mailto:Giancarlo.Guizzardi@unibz.it" target="_blank"><Giancarlo.Guizzardi@unibz.it></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 14 April 2021 14:26<br>
<b>To:</b> Maria Keet <a href="mailto:mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za" target="_blank">
<mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za></a>; Barry Smith <a href="mailto:ifomis@gmail.com" target="_blank">
<ifomis@gmail.com></a>; Laure Vieu <a href="mailto:vieu@irit.fr" target="_blank">
<vieu@irit.fr></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nicola Guarino <a href="mailto:guarino@loa.istc.cnr.it" target="_blank">
<guarino@loa.istc.cnr.it></a>; João Paulo
Almeida <a href="mailto:jpalmeida@ieee.org" target="_blank">
<jpalmeida@ieee.org></a>; John Bateman <a href="mailto:bateman@uni-bremen.de" target="_blank">
<bateman@uni-bremen.de></a>; Stefano Borgo
<a href="mailto:stefano.borgo@cnr.it" target="_blank">
<stefano.borgo@cnr.it></a>; Anthony Cohn <a href="mailto:A.G.Cohn@leeds.ac.uk" target="_blank">
<A.G.Cohn@leeds.ac.uk></a>; Antony Galton
<a href="mailto:A.P.Galton@exeter.ac.uk" target="_blank">
<A.P.Galton@exeter.ac.uk></a>; Janna
Hastings <a href="mailto:janna.hastings@gmail.com" target="_blank">
<janna.hastings@gmail.com></a>; Heinrich
Herre <a href="mailto:heinrich.herre@imise.uni-leipzig.de" target="_blank">
<heinrich.herre@imise.uni-leipzig.de></a>;
Werner Kuhn <a href="mailto:werner.kuhn@gmail.com" target="_blank">
<werner.kuhn@gmail.com></a>; Riichiro
Mizoguchi <a href="mailto:mizo@jaist.ac.jp" target="_blank">
<mizo@jaist.ac.jp></a>; Mark Musen <a href="mailto:musen@stanford.edu" target="_blank">
<musen@stanford.edu></a>; Leo Obrst <a href="mailto:lobrst@gmail.com" target="_blank">
<lobrst@gmail.com></a>; Barry Smith <a href="mailto:phismith@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">
<phismith@buffalo.edu></a>; Zena Wood <a href="mailto:Z.M.Wood2@exeter.ac.uk" target="_blank">
<Z.M.Wood2@exeter.ac.uk></a>; Roberta
Ferrario <a href="mailto:roberta.ferrario@loa.istc.cnr.it" target="_blank">
<roberta.ferrario@loa.istc.cnr.it></a>;
Michael Gruninger <a href="mailto:gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">
<gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca></a>; <a href="mailto:thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch" target="_blank">
thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch</a>; IAOA Executive
Council <a href="mailto:iaoa-council@ovgu.de" target="_blank">
<iaoa-council@ovgu.de></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: FOIS and CORE</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Dear Maria and all,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">CORE does periodic revision in its
rankings from time to time.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">They have already requested input from
the different communities many months ago.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">As a community, we missed that. I
wasn't concerned about that because the conference
was classified as A</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">(well, in theory, we could have tried
to make the case for A* but that would not have
worked out as</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">our demotion shows...).
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">The criteria used by CORE is a mixture
of objective and subjective points (again, the
communities</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">try to make the case considering both
types of indicators). FOIS does not do well
h-index-wise but</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">that is mainly due to the fact that it
is a biannual conference (I won't even enter the
discussion</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">of how much of a bad idea is to use
h-index to judge conferences...). But that is the
same for KR</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">and KR managed to revise their
initially bad evaluation. Again, this requires an
active community effort.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Other conferences that are small but
prestigious in their relevant communities have</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">managed to even talk their way up to A*
(e.g., PODS). ER is trying the same move.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">As for subjective aspects, some of the
points that are taken very seriously is the impact</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">and scientific stature of people
playing key roles in the conference (PC chairs and
members,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">general chairs, keynote speakers,
frequent authors, etc.).
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">I think we should react now by
contacting them and defending the importance of the
event</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">as the most important event for this
community and highlighting some of these points</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">best,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Giancarlo</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr width="98%" size="2" align="center">
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-2433894480098954257gmail-m_5535574259061748947x_divRplyFwdMsg">
<p><b><span style="color:black">From:</span></b><span style="color:black"> Maria Keet <<a href="mailto:mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za" target="_blank">mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:33 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Guizzardi Giancarlo <<a href="mailto:Giancarlo.Guizzardi@unibz.it" target="_blank">Giancarlo.Guizzardi@unibz.it</a>>;
Barry Smith <<a href="mailto:ifomis@gmail.com" target="_blank">ifomis@gmail.com</a>>;
Laure Vieu <<a href="mailto:vieu@irit.fr" target="_blank">vieu@irit.fr</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nicola Guarino <<a href="mailto:guarino@loa.istc.cnr.it" target="_blank">guarino@loa.istc.cnr.it</a>>;
João Paulo Almeida <<a href="mailto:jpalmeida@ieee.org" target="_blank">jpalmeida@ieee.org</a>>;
John Bateman <<a href="mailto:bateman@uni-bremen.de" target="_blank">bateman@uni-bremen.de</a>>;
Stefano Borgo <<a href="mailto:stefano.borgo@cnr.it" target="_blank">stefano.borgo@cnr.it</a>>;
Cohn <<a href="mailto:A.G.Cohn@leeds.ac.uk" target="_blank">A.G.Cohn@leeds.ac.uk</a>>;
Antony Galton <<a href="mailto:A.P.Galton@exeter.ac.uk" target="_blank">A.P.Galton@exeter.ac.uk</a>>;
Janna Hastings <<a href="mailto:janna.hastings@gmail.com" target="_blank">janna.hastings@gmail.com</a>>;
Heinrich Herre <<a href="mailto:heinrich.herre@imise.uni-leipzig.de" target="_blank">heinrich.herre@imise.uni-leipzig.de</a>>;
Werner Kuhn <<a href="mailto:werner.kuhn@gmail.com" target="_blank">werner.kuhn@gmail.com</a>>;
Riichiro Mizoguchi <<a href="mailto:mizo@jaist.ac.jp" target="_blank">mizo@jaist.ac.jp</a>>;
Mark Musen <<a href="mailto:musen@stanford.edu" target="_blank">musen@stanford.edu</a>>;
Leo Obrst <<a href="mailto:lobrst@gmail.com" target="_blank">lobrst@gmail.com</a>>;
Barry Smith <<a href="mailto:phismith@buffalo.edu" target="_blank">phismith@buffalo.edu</a>>;
Zena Wood <<a href="mailto:Z.M.Wood2@exeter.ac.uk" target="_blank">Z.M.Wood2@exeter.ac.uk</a>>;
Roberta Ferrario <<a href="mailto:roberta.ferrario@loa.istc.cnr.it" target="_blank">roberta.ferrario@loa.istc.cnr.it</a>>;
Michael Gruninger <<a href="mailto:gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca" target="_blank">gruninger@mie.utoronto.ca</a>>;
<a href="mailto:thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch" target="_blank">thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch</a>
<<a href="mailto:thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch" target="_blank">thomas.studer@inf.unibe.ch</a>>;
IAOA Executive Council <<a href="mailto:iaoa-council@ovgu.de" target="_blank">iaoa-council@ovgu.de</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: FOIS and CORE</span> </p>
<div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p>Dear Giancarlo, All,<br>
<br>
It may be of use to first find out from them why the
re-evaluated it differently.
<br>
Good quality papers isn't the only criterion they
use. It's also, e.g., high performers among the
authors, but I assume we pass that as well. And then
there's the h-index of the conference, which doesn't
do well, as if FOIS doesn't really have any impact,
actually. Well, anyway, that's what it looked like
when EKAW was putting the material together, when
Enrico Motta was showing off his tool for computing
citation metrics during the EKAW steering committee
meeting. Anyway, if I had to put in a bet for reason
why, it would be that and a need to spin that story
better. Still, to be sure, perhaps the EC can try to
find out why from Lin first?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Maria<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<pre>---- </pre>
<pre>Dr. Maria Keet</pre>
<pre>Associate Professor</pre>
<pre>Department of Computer Science</pre>
<pre>University of Cape Town</pre>
<pre>Cape Town, South Africa</pre>
<pre>tel: +27 21 650 2667</pre>
<pre>fax: +27 21 650 3551</pre>
<pre>email: <a href="mailto:mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za" target="_blank">mkeet@cs.uct.ac.za</a></pre>
<pre>work: <a href="http://www.cs.uct.ac.za" target="_blank">http://www.cs.uct.ac.za</a></pre>
<pre>home: <a href="http://www.meteck.org" target="_blank">http://www.meteck.org</a></pre>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"> </p>
<div>
<p>On 13/04/2021 21:44,
Guizzardi Giancarlo wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Dear
all,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Let me
raise another concern now.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Please
see the message below from the CORE committee,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">in which
they are revising the classification of many
CS conferences.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"><br>
As many of you know, CORE is important for
computer science faculties.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Not only
directly but also because they build up into
several national evaluation systems.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">If the
classification of a conference goes down,
people will prefer to send their</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">best
papers somewhere else.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">According
to this revised classification, FOIS went from
an A conference to a B conference.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">I think
there is room there for protesting this
classification before their final decisions</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">but we
need to move fast and institutionally, i.e.,
IAOA should do it.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Best
regards,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Giancarlo</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://groups.google.com/a/core.edu.au/group/rankings/t/9f437bd0cd9470bf?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:16pt;color:rgb(17,85,204)">CORE
conference rankings (preliminary) changes
</span></a></span><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"></span></p>
<table style="width:100%;border-collapse:collapse" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:1pt solid lightgrey;background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%;padding:7.5pt 11.25pt">
<p><span style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(177,176,176)">Lin Padgham <<a href="mailto:lin.padgham@rmit.edu.au" target="_blank">lin.padgham@rmit.edu.au</a>>:
Apr 11 11:06AM +1000
</span><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(46,46,46)"><br>
<br>
Dear CS colleagues,<br>
The CORE committees have now finished
reviewing the approximately 400 new<br>
and existing conferences that were
part of this review round.<br>
More than 50% of the conferences
reviewed retained their existing rank.<br>
Consistent with our previous practice,
we publish here<br>
<<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17cnG1Vgyjdu3pGdIHrvyw6HCithPAvTeDd_YB_FVOK0/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17cnG1Vgyjdu3pGdIHrvyw6HCithPAvTeDd_YB_FVOK0/edit?usp=sharing</a>><br>
a list of all planned ranking changes,
allowing a short period for any<br>
additional information if community
members consider there has been an<br>
error of judgement.* If you wish to
potentially question a ranking change,<br>
please notify your intent with an
email to <a href="mailto:lin.padgham@gmail.com" target="_blank">
lin.padgham@gmail.com</a><br>
<<a href="mailto:lin.padgham@gmail.com" target="_blank">lin.padgham@gmail.com</a>>,
with subject "Rankings
<confname>" by April 18th.*<br>
You will then be provided with the
submission and the detailed decision<br>
report, referencing the data on which
the decision was based. *If you<br>
consider you have additional data
which may change the committee's<br>
recommendation, this must be provided
by April 25th*. Committees will then<br>
review this, prior to finalisation and
upload of the new CORE conference<br>
ranking.<br>
Regards,<br>
Lin (CORE Rankings Co-ordinator)<br>
<br>
Lin Padgham<br>
Professor in Artificial Intelligence<br>
Computer Science, RMIT University<br>
Melbourne, Australia.<br>
ph. +61 3 9925 3214 (but email works
better)<br>
(please note I only work Wednesdays)</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
_________________________________________________________________________<br>
Msg Archives: <a href="https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-advisor/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/iaoa-advisor/</a><br>
IAOA wiki: <a href="http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/IAOA" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://ontolog-02.cim3.net/wiki/IAOA</a><br>
IAOA website: <a href="http://iaoa.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://iaoa.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>