langston@CS.UTK.EDU (Mike Langston) (06/02/90)
In a recent theorynet posting, Bill Pugh writes: > Part of the reason for posting this note is that a number people in > the theory community have noted that they routinely ignore CACM. Hopefully, > this can be changed if more good papers are submitted to CACM. I'm appending below a SIGACT News open letter (sans letterhead) that addresses this point. Mike Langston CACM Associate Editor for Algorithms and Data Structures -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LaTeX source follows -------------------------------------------------------------------------- \documentstyle[12pt]{article} \pagestyle{empty} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in} \setlength{\topmargin}{0in} \setlength{\textwidth}{6.4in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.5in} \begin{document} \hspace{\fill}February 1, 1989 \par\vspace{30pt}\noindent To: Readers of {\it SIGACT News} \par\vspace{5pt}\noindent From: Donna Brown, Mike Langston, David Shmoys and Jeff Vitter\\ \hspace*{37pt}Associate Editors for Algorithms and Data Structures \par\vspace{5pt}\noindent Subject: Theoretical Computer Science and {\it CACM} \par\vspace{20pt}\noindent {\it Communications of the ACM\/} has traditionally been a source of high quality theoretical results that are of interest to a broad spectrum of the computer science community. Unfortunately, with the elimination of the Research Contributions section, we have been experiencing a dwindling number of acceptable submissions. We solicit your support in reversing this trend. \par\vspace{10pt}\noindent As you may know, there is now an Articles section in {\it CACM\/}, for which submissions must meet the guidelines set out below. \begin{quote} Articles are papers written for the general ACM audience, who are persons with four or more years experience in the computing field. Articles cover all aspects of the computer science. They contain substantial tutorial material that sets background, defines fundamental concepts, compares alternative approaches, and explains the significance or application of the results. They emphasize concepts and principles without excessive technical detail. They make good use of figures. The {\it Scientific American\/} article is the model. \end{quote} While we do not wish to encourage submissions that are without significant technical content, well-crafted submissions that meet the above criteria can, we believe, be beneficial in several ways, including the following. \begin{itemize} \item Improve the usefulness of {\it CACM\/} to the algorithms/theory community. How many recent papers have been of interest to you? \item Increase the number of SIGACT members. An appalling number of our colleagues are not members of ACM (and hence are not members of SIGACT). If you ask why, one factor often mentioned is a perceived decline in the utility of {\it CACM\/}. \item Enhance the general appreciation of the role that theory plays and its relevance to the remainder of the computing profession. If you discuss this with a few of your nontheoretical contemporaries, you are likely to find plenty of evidence that this is sorely needed. \end{itemize} We especially welcome papers written by senior researchers, who are in a good position to give perspective and depth to Articles. Please feel free to contact us for more information, or to discuss any preliminary ideas you may have about the potential viability of a paper you might be willing to prepare. \end{document}