simulation@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu (Moderator: Paul Fishwick) (10/23/88)
Volume: 6, Issue: 1, Sat Oct 22 23:43:43 EDT 1988 +----------------+ | TODAY'S TOPICS | +----------------+ SPECIAL TOPIC: 2 Comments re: ACM Transactions on Simulation * Moderator: Paul Fishwick, Univ. of Florida * Send topical mail to: simulation@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu * Archives available via FTP to bikini.cis.ufl.edu, login as 'anonymous', use your last name as the password, change directory to pub/simdigest. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: "Leonard_S._Li.ESAE"@Xerox.COM Date: 21 Oct 88 10:32:10 PDT (Friday) Subject: Re: "ACM Transactions on Simulation" From: LLi.ESAE@Xerox.COM To: simulation@ufl.EDU Cc: LLi.ESAE@Xerox.COM I am a member of both ACM and SCS, and I agree with Paul Luker that currently there seems to be no need for two "Transactions", one from SCS and one from ACM. I wonder if SCS and ACM might be willing to consider publishing a joint "Transaction", following the example of IEEE/Computer Society and ACM/SIGSIM in combining their newsletters. Leonard Li Systems Analysis & Simulation Xerox Corp. El Segundo, CA ------------------------------ Return-Path: <cdash@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 88 14:50:50 MDT From: Charles Shub <cdash@boulder.Colorado.EDU> To: EEFA03R@calstate.bitnet Subject: Re: your comments in SIMULATION DIGEST V5 N10 Newsgroups: comp.simulation In-Reply-To: <18685@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> Organization: University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Cc: cdash@zeppo.colorado.edu In article <18685@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> your message says: >From: EEFA03R%CALSTATE.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU >To: simulation@ufl.edu >Subject: ACM Transactions on Simulation > >I would like to express my views on the idea of establishing a new >journal "ACM Transactions on Simulation." >First, to be consistent with other "Transactions", the journal >should be pitched more at the research level and constitute >archival material. You are absolutely correct. >Secondly, I do not think that there is a demand for another >journal at that level. "Transactions of the Society for >Computer Simulation" has not long been established. Other >material at this level is published in specialist journals >in OR, applied mathematics and so on, as Paul pointed out. Paul, I think i'll disagree about that. Archival quality papers in discrete simulation are not going across charlie pratt's desk for consideration. Management Science, The ORSA Journal, and the applied mathematics literature are not PRIMARILY interested in Simulation. I believe strongly that the discipline of Simulation needs an archival journal. I look at TODS catering to the database application area. I look at TOG catering to the graphics application area, and have yet to convince myself that simulation is less rich in underlying theory than either of those two. Thus I would argue that there should be an archival journal in Simulation as well. You seem to feel that Transactions of SCS can fill that bill. Much as I don't want to, I think I have to disagree for a couple of reasons. First, like it or not, there still is the notion that SCS is the society for continuous simulation. More about that below. Also, SCS is probably not large enough an organization to pull it off. At latest count, I think SIGSIM has more members than SCS. While the goal SCS has of becoming the primary society for simulationists is laudable, it just isn't going to happen for several years. I'm trying to be realistic, not negative. As an entity, SCS admits it does not know enough about discrete simulation. They are being accurate and realistic. >Also, I think it a myth that SCS is continuous-oriented. >There is a historical basis for this criticism, I agree, but >the society has worked to overcome this, and the interests of >its members reflect the shift in interest. Discrete event simulation >has begun to make its way into "Transactions", and many of the >contributions to "Simulation" have a discrete bias. Personally, >I don't think there should be any bias at all. I am interested >in simulation, and don't perceive the world as two disjoint >subsets, the continuous and discrete. I don't think that a new >journal biased towards d.e.s. would be a good move. Again, I need to disagree. I certainly see the discrete application papers going to SIMULATION, and I'm doing my best to keep the quality up. With the exception of the special issue, I haven't seen the same for Transactions. The quality of the specal issue was not as good as I would have liked, but that is in part due to lack of quality papers, and in part due to a conscious decision (not mine) to get the issue out. >SCS is currently reviewing the style, content and level of its >publications. Discrete event simulation will certainly figure >strongly in the new equation. I'll say more about this below, but it seems appropriate to take issue with your next paragraph first. >I am concerned that a new publication will have some impact >on SCS. It must be remembered that SCS is the only society >dedicated to simulation, and that it provides a major service >to all those in the field through its conferences and >publications. I am concerned that an ACM Transactions will >compete with the SCS Transactions, and neither will gain. The >solution is not to lower the quality of the published material. The issue of simulationists and socities is complex. I disagree that SCS is the only society dedicated to simulation. SIGSIM is also dedicated to simulation and even though it is a subunit of ACM, it serves more simulationists than SCS. I belong to both. You know I've been on the board of one for several years. I've also been vice chair of the other. The important issue is to have outlets for our work and common interests among our members. I don't view the two societies as being in competition. Finally, I concur with your comment on quality. I have strong concerns about quality in SCS publications. That is probably a different issue, but I'm going to discuss it now because I see it as crucial. I believe there is a feeling in the San Diego Office that expanding circulation is more important than quality. I particularly see this with the AI papers appearing in simulation. My colleague in AI does not view the AI stuff in simulation as being particularly high quality. There are other outlets for AI work. Is SCS getting a reputation for being the place to publish lower quality AI papers. Now for the magic wand that fixes everything. Well, it doesn't, but I can dream. My premise is that there is no PRIMARY outlet for archival quality research in discrete simulation. SCS wants to expand into this area, but is (as of now) ill equipped to do it. SIGSIM wants a referreed journal. Those in the IEEE computer society who do simulation are similarly inclined. The obvious soluton is a co sponsored (ACM, IEEE-CS and SCS) quarterly publication. It becomes available to a LARGE audience, much larger than SCS can attract. It gives SCS exposure and publicity and prestige. It fills the bill for the SIGSIM types and may well appeal to ACM types who are not in SIGSIM. The audience is over 100 thousand people. That geys more papers (hopefully thre will be enough high quality papers) I've put the bug in Steve Roberts (chair of SIGSIM) Dick Nance (the primary mover on the ACM side) and Walter's ears. If the simulation folk can forget about their societal loyalties long enough to concentrate on doing someting for the discipline of simulation, something good might come about. Your reaction to the new publication seemed to be from the perspective of it could harm SCS. I look at the other side of the coin. SCS can benefit from this. Hope I haven't rambled on too long. Write if you have questions. charlie shub cdash@boulder.Colorado.EDU -or- ..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!cdash or even cdash@colospgs (BITNET) ------------------------------ +--------------------------+ | END OF SIMULATION DIGEST | +--------------------------+