Some reasons why I left the ACM
Published 2008-10-01 @ 19:45
It just seems to me that the editors have walked away from their desks. Here is a few of my favorites:
“The RosettaNet consortium aligns its diffusion strategies with its development processes while adapting them to the local conditions in the home countries of its member organizations.” – “A Case Study of RosettaNet”, Standards Development and Diffusion, Communications of the ACM, Dec 2007
That’s the opening of the entire article! What the fuck does any of that nonsense mean?
“This step ignores small subtrees, thus implementing the mass threshold in a way that further reduces the number of comparisons required considerably, as the vast majority of the trees are small.” – Clone Detection Using Abstract Syntax Trees, Baxter, Yahin, Moura, Sant’Anna, Bier.
(I should point out that this one was IEEE, but really, does that make a difference?)
and to sum it all up (eloquently), David Parnas:
“As a senior researcher, I am saddened to see funding agencies, department heads, deans, and promotion committees encouraging younger researchers to do shallow research. As a reader of what should be serious scientific journals, I am annoyed to see the computer science literature being polluted by more and more papers of less and less scientific value. […] Other readers of scientific journals should be similarly outraged and demand change” – David Parnas, Viewpoint, Communications of the ACM, Nov 2007
I completely and totally agree with Parnas. Yet, when I did leave the ACM and told them why, did I get any response to my feedback? No…
Maybe someday they’ll figure out that they’re not doing the excellent job they used to do and clean up their act.