On STOC/FOCS special issues

by Oded Goldreich

[Written for possible presentation in the STOC'04 business meeting.]

My opinion is that there is no point in having STOC/FOCS special issues at any journal devoted to theoretical computer science at large. My point is that the scope of STOC/FOCS is almost identical to the scope of such a journal, and so there is no added value (for science) in having such special issues. (Of course, it may be the publishers interest to have such a special issue, but I do not see why the scientific community should contribute to an effort that only benefits the publisher.) Similar considerations apply with respect to having a special issue of, say, the Computational Complexity Conference in the Journal of Computational Complexity.

Special issues just generate a host of administration problems, and the only reason to have them is if they serve some good cause. For example, a special issue on some area is a good way to focus attention to that area. Likewise, a special issue to commemorate some special event. None of these applies to a STOC/FOCS special issue (in a journal like JCSS or SICOMP).

I don't see the point of having a special issue that contains a selection of 7-15 papers out of 60-70 papers presented in a given FOCS/STOC. Furthermore, the presumption and/or pretense that this selection reflects the "best papers in the said conference" is harmful as well as highly problematic:

Any selection is harmful, so one should stick to selections that cannot be avoided (e.g., a program for FOCS/STOC must be selected because the community wants 60-80 presentations rather than 200-300). There is no objective reason to select the "best 10 papers in FOCS". (Same for any selection of the "best paper"...)
The selection of the "best 10 papers in STOC/FOCS" is highly controversial. (Same for the selection of the "best paper"...) If a committee selects the "best 60-80 papers" (as done in FOCS/STOC), then it is likely not to miss the 10-20 that should not be missed. If a committee selects the "best 10 papers" then the outcomes are likely to be among the best 40-60.
Who is going to select the "best 10 papers in STOC/FOCS" and with what authority? Typically, the selection is done by one or two members of the PC. What does it reflect? Furthermore, what if (as is the case!) some papers decline the invitation to the corresponding special issue? What if some great paper is not included due to other considerations (e.g., its length, its expected completion time)?

In general, I want to speak against the tendency to rank work. At times, a ranking is needed, but when it is not needed then it only serves to increase competitiveness. Some competitiveness is very healthy for science but too much is not healthy. My impression is that we (TOC) have more than enough competitiveness already.

(Still, I do not consider this issue to be that important as to justify my resignation from the editorial board of journals that decide to have special issues of the aforementioned nature...)

Back to Oded's page of essays and opinions or to Oded's homepage.