Rush Science

It looks like QIP talk accepts and rejects are out.  Sadly a piece of work I’ve been hacking on for a while didn’t make the cut (eventually it will make it’s way to the arXiv.)  But I did get one of the more amusing reviews sentences I’ve seen:

However, working this idea out seems to a require a protocol which is rather involved and, in some places, subtle.  Consequently, I was not able to work through and understand the construction in the time available.

Which is, perhaps, one of the best condemnations of the computer science conference system I’ve ever seen!

All rush and no play makes science something something.

4 Replies to “Rush Science”

  1. I don’t publish in conference proceedings, but I do regularly read papers published in such places. For some reason it always seems to take me longer to find an article published via conference than via journal. Citing journal articles is also simpler I think.
    Incidentally, was it my imagination or did QIP have an option for submitting an abstract for a talk only (i.e. no conference publication) early on which disappeared before the listed deadline?

  2. Oh and for the record the referee who thought the codes we constructed had bad properties would have rejected Kitaev’s toric code paper. A paper which was not published for many years while it sat on the arXiv. Heh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *