Total number of respondents: 139 + 11 program committee (PC) members, whose answers are shown separately. A,R = accepted and rejected papers |

Which of the following features (bugs?) of the bidding process did you find useful? | |

summaries ("abstracts") | PC:11 |

subject categories (1. Geometric algorithms: design. 2. Geometric algorithms: analysis. 3. Geometric data structures ... 17. Applications) | PC:1 |

looking at papers before the submission deadline | PC:3 |

Five categories for bidding (++,+,~,-,conflict) is too much. | PC:1 |

Five categories for bidding are too few. | |

Five categories for bidding are o.k. | PC:10 |

Specifying a confidence level for the evaluation (range 0-3) | |||

| PC:1 | ||

| PC:3 | ||

| PC:7 | ||

Giving separate grades in different categories (technical strength, presentation, etc.) | |||

| PC:5 | ||

| PC:5 | ||

| PC:1 | ||

What did you think of papers with accompanying video and multimedia submissions? | |||

| PC:5 | ||

| PC:3 | ||

| PC:3 | ||

In general, do you think it is a good idea to encourage papers with accompanying video and multimedia submissions? | |||

| PC:6 | ||

| PC:5 |

Normalized scores in addition to original scores | |||

| PC:3 | ||

| PC:6 | ||

| PC:2 | ||

History of status changes | |||

| PC:2 | ||

| PC:2 | ||

| PC:7 | ||

List of paper scores, alphabetical by title | |||

| PC:5 | ||

| PC:6 | ||

| |||

List of paper scores by paper number | |||

| |||

| PC:6 | ||

| PC:5 | ||

List of paper scores, sorted by standard deviation of scores | |||

| PC:3 | ||

| PC:7 | ||

| PC:1 | ||

Any useful/important features that I could think of. (besides having the total count in each category prominently displayed at all times) | For the bidding process it would be very nice to have a page that lists the abstracts and gives you the opportunity to bid just under each abstract. I had to have two windows open, one with the abstracts, one with the bidding, which was pretty annoying (especially after clicking on the wrong button and losing all bids entered so far ... :-\ | ||

A discussion phase of three weeks is too long. | PC:1 | ||

Three weeks of discussion are too short. | |||

Three weeks of discussion are just right. | PC:10 | ||

The first part is a poll concerning future SoCG conferences. | |

If you have submitted several papers, you need to answer these questions only once. (Unless you have a very strong opinion; then you can repeat your answers for each of your submissions.) If you have no strong opinion, you can leave the fields blank. |

How did you like the two-stage electronic submission procedure? | |

It was confusing. | total 2. R = 1, A = 1 = 50% |

It was smooth and convenient. | total 57. R =40, A =17 = 30% |

It was complicated and cumbersome. | total 5. R = 2, A = 3 = 60% |

It was clear and easy. | total 69. R =48, A =21 = 30% |

I experienced technical problems with the submission process. | total 2. R = 2, A = 0 = 0% |

Format of Paper | |

It would be inconvenient if papers could not be submitted in PDF format. | total 60. R =42, A =18 = 30% | PC:5 |

It would be inconvenient if papers could not be submitted in PostScript format. | total 60. R =44, A =16 = 27% | PC:6 |

It would be inconvenient if papers could not be submitted in compressed format. | total 13. R = 9, A = 4 = 31% | PC:4 |

It would be inconvenient if I could not use color figures. | total 29. R =23, A = 6 = 21% | PC:1 |

I would prefer to submit papers in the final two-column proceedings format, instead of the current one-column format. | total 44. R =30, A =14 = 32% | PC:4 |

I would prefer to use my own format for submission if the permitted quantity of text would match the two-column format of the final proceedings version. | total 16. R =10, A = 6 = 38% | PC:3 |

Which of the following alternate submission forms would you find useful? | |

a URL pointer to a technical report or preprint on my homepage | total 35. R =28, A = 7 = 20% | PC:2 |

a pointer to an arXiv preprint | total 13. R = 8, A = 5 = 38% | PC:1 |

All submissions not adhering to the guidelines (e.g. having more than 10 pages, or being 2-column) should be rejected. | |

I agree. | total 35. R =28, A = 7 = 20% | PC:1 |

I disagree. | total 79. R =52, A =27 = 34% | PC:7 |

Submissions must contain all proofs, in an appendix if necessary (without length restriction). | |

I agree. | total 59. R =39, A =20 = 34% | PC:3 |

I disagree. | total 55. R =40, A =15 = 27% | PC:6 |

What would you think about double-blind reviewing for SoCG? (The committee and subreferees do not know the authors of the papers.) (This question was added later and only asked of PC members.) | |

I would favor it. | total 0. R = 0, A = 0 =100% | PC:4 |

I am against it. | total 0. R = 0, A = 0 =100% | PC:4 |

Anything else I would like to say: (Specific remarks about the questions above, comments about the submission process or about the conference itself, suggestions for future conferences) THESE ARE THE ANSWERS FROM PC MEMBERS. | On rejecting all papers that don't satisfy format guidelines: In principle, I'd like to reject all such papers, but I don't want to be too rigid. For instance, I wouldn't want to reject an 11 page paper, but I would want to reject a 15 page paper.
On submissions containing all proofs: I'm in favor of this if "all proofs" is changed to "all interesting and/or important proofs", but this is such a subjective measure that I'm not sure how it could ever be enforced.
On double-blind reviewing: I'm somewhat for this, in principle, but it would depend on how cumbersome it would make the reviewing process. I'm also concerned about how effective this would be in practice --- this is a small enough community that one could probably guess the authors for many of the paper based on known interests, the paper's list of references, and idiosyncrasies of individual writing styles. It's a pity that applied papers still have such a hard time getting in and that a mix of theory and application is considered "strange". I am afraid that confidence levels were so different among PC members. Maybe some nice guideline is required. I think blind reviewing is a good thing, i.e. the committee should know the authors names, but not the subreferees. the last three questions do not have a yes/no answer: for not adhering to guidelines: 2-column format is too much, but i wouldnt disqualify a 10.5 page long normal format. the idea of having all proofs in an appendix is appealing on one hand, but it is unfair to dump a 50 pages paper on a busy PC member. on second thought, perhaps it is always a good idea to require all proofs - will prevent half-baked papers from showing up. the blind refereeing is ok in principle, but it has drawbacks too: we often say that we dont understand the paper, but we trust X. if we didnt know who X was, then... Double-blind would make it highly inconvenient to use subreferees: You'd always run the risk of asking an author or coauthor, unless you figured out who the authors are - in which case you'd defeat the purpose of double-blind. (the last 3 questions are a little bit "boolean"...) |

(1) In each category, it is possible to independently make as many selections as you want (or none at all). However, you should try to select those boxes that best describe your situation, and you should not select every box that might possibly apply. For example, an algorithm for line segments will necessarily deal with the endpoints of those line segments, i.e. points, or possibily the algorithm also works for points by treating them as a special case of a degenerate line segment. but in this case you should check only the box for line segments, in the category Objects below.)(2) If your paper contains |

1d | total 5. R = 4, A = 1 = 20% |

1.5d | total 2. R = 0, A = 2 =100% |

2d | total 77. R =56, A =21 = 27% |

2.5d (polyhedral terrain) | total 4. R = 3, A = 1 = 25% |

3d | total 37. R =27, A =10 = 27% |

4d | total 0. R = 0, A = 0 =100% |

arbitrary (fixed) dimension | total 34. R =22, A =12 = 35% |

high (variable) dimensions | total 11. R =10, A = 1 = 9% |

other spaces (for example, metric spaces) | total 4. R = 1, A = 3 = 75% |

points | total 57. R =38, A =19 = 33% |

lines, planes, hyperplanes, line segments | total 44. R =33, A =11 = 25% |

polygons, polyhedra | total 40. R =33, A = 7 = 18% |

circles, balls, spheres | total 23. R =17, A = 6 = 26% |

degree-2 curves and surfaces | total 12. R = 9, A = 3 = 25% |

higher-degree algebraic curves and surfaces | total 14. R =13, A = 1 = 7% |

objects of arbitrary shape, pseudolines, etc. | total 15. R = 7, A = 8 = 53% |

Convexity | |

convex shapes only | total 10. R = 4, A = 6 = 60% |

convex hull | total 12. R = 9, A = 3 = 25% | ||

Voronoi diagram | total 10. R = 8, A = 2 = 20% | ||

Delaunay triangulation | total 15. R =11, A = 4 = 27% | ||

triangulation (other than Delaunay), tilings of space, meshing | total 17. R =14, A = 3 = 18% | ||

pseudotriangulation | total 4. R = 3, A = 1 = 25% | ||

arrangement | total 20. R =13, A = 7 = 35% | ||

calculation of distance, area, width etc. | total 20. R =16, A = 4 = 20% | ||

optimization problem: | |||

| total 8. R = 6, A = 2 = 25% | ||

| total 6. R = 5, A = 1 = 17% | ||

| total 8. R = 7, A = 1 = 12% | ||

| total 8. R = 4, A = 4 = 50% | ||

| total 8. R = 4, A = 4 = 50% | ||

| dilation // convex programming // set cover // simultaneous clusters found in several arrangements // protein folding with maximal H-H contacts // // power assignment // Triangle area optimization (MaxMin, MinMax) // finding local or global minima // extremal configuration under certain measure // packing // optimal strategies for games // optimal characterization // Geometric Partition Problems // minimize height of a watchtower // length of shortest side of rectangle | ||

curve and surface reconstruction | total 10. R = 6, A = 4 = 40% | ||

geometric modeling | total 17. R =15, A = 2 = 12% | ||

shape analysis (topology or other characteristics) | total 15. R =10, A = 5 = 33% | ||

range searching | total 7. R = 2, A = 5 = 71% | ||

motion planning, manipulation of objects | total 13. R = 9, A = 4 = 31% | ||

nearest neighbor | total 11. R = 9, A = 2 = 18% | ||

visibility, illumination, art gallery | total 8. R = 5, A = 3 = 38% | ||

graph drawing, graph embedding | total 9. R = 6, A = 3 = 33% | ||

geometric deduction and inference, learning, theorem-proving | total 4. R = 4, A = 0 = 0% | ||

other: | packing // realizability // finding an object // deals with aggregates of geometric data // geometric path, geometric matching // collision detection // folding / dissection // curve generation, traversal, indexing // intersection of curves // combinatorial rigidity theory // structural characterization and finding an efficient algorithm // packing |

construction | total 81. R =57, A =24 = 30% |

enumeration | total 16. R =14, A = 2 = 12% |

sampling | total 9. R = 7, A = 2 = 22% |

geometric primitives (problems of constant size) | total 6. R = 5, A = 1 = 17% |

other: | robustness // distance computation // set cover // output-sensitive non-intersection queries (reporting problems) on aggregated data // reconfiguration of trees // Handling one-pass, streaming data // optimization // error measure // approximation // approximation // computing Betti numbers // eigenvectors // robustness |

Work on the problems addressed in the paper is finished. | total 19. R =13, A = 6 = 32% | ||

Work on the problems addressed in the paper will continue. | total 96. R =67, A =29 = 30% | ||

Work on the problems addressed has started recently. | total 24. R =19, A = 5 = 21% | ||

The problem has a long history. | total 40. R =27, A =13 = 32% | ||

The results reported in this paper are preliminary. | total 8. R = 7, A = 1 = 12% | ||

This is a new problem that has not been considered before. | total 30. R =23, A = 7 = 23% | ||

This is the first solution to a problem which has been posed as an open problem | total 23. R =13, A =10 = 43% | ||

| total 14. R = 7, A = 7 = 50% | ||

| total 13. R = 8, A = 5 = 38% | ||

| total 7. R = 6, A = 1 = 14% | ||

The problem has been considered previously. Compared to previous solutions, the result (algorithm/theorem) is | total 65. R =47, A =18 = 28% | ||

| total 41. R =29, A =12 = 29% | ||

| total 42. R =31, A =11 = 26% | ||

| total 33. R =28, A = 5 = 15% | ||

| total 17. R =15, A = 2 = 12% | ||

| total 14. R =13, A = 1 = 7% | ||

| total 30. R =21, A = 9 = 30% | ||

| total 9. R = 8, A = 1 = 11% | ||

| total 25. R =22, A = 3 = 12% | ||

| total 6. R = 4, A = 2 = 33% | ||

| total 1. R = 1, A = 0 = 0% | ||

| total 9. R = 6, A = 3 = 33% |

classical (static off-line; all data is known in advance) | total 86. R =67, A =19 = 22% |

data structure (preprocessing and query) | total 23. R =15, A = 8 = 35% |

dynamic or on-line (insertion and deletion) | total 10. R = 7, A = 3 = 30% |

kinetic (data in motion) | total 9. R = 5, A = 4 = 44% |

data streams | total 4. R = 2, A = 2 = 50% |

oracle models, black-box models, information-based complexity | total 2. R = 1, A = 1 = 50% |

noisy data, data with errors, imprecise or fuzzy data | total 7. R = 5, A = 2 = 29% |

external memory, caching | total 2. R = 0, A = 2 =100% |

parallel computing | total 2. R = 2, A = 0 = 0% |

other computational model (e.g. quantum computing, optical computing, special hardware): | floating point // commodity graphics hardware // floating point |

approximation | total 42. R =28, A =14 = 33% |

randomized | total 14. R = 9, A = 5 = 36% |

heuristic (with no guaranteed (optimal, correct) solution) | total 8. R = 8, A = 0 = 0% |

finite (undecidable/decidable/computable) | total 7. R = 4, A = 3 = 43% |

NP-hard/exponential, NP | total 6. R = 4, A = 2 = 33% |

P (polynomial) | total 27. R =19, A = 8 = 30% |

low-order polynomial | total 45. R =28, A =17 = 38% |

linear | total 19. R =14, A = 5 = 26% |

sublinear | total 3. R = 2, A = 1 = 33% |

(poly-)logarithmic or sublogarithmic | total 9. R = 6, A = 3 = 33% |

constant | total 2. R = 2, A = 0 = 0% |

subconstant | total 0. R = 0, A = 0 =100% |

The running time of the algorithm is not analyzed. | total 13. R =11, A = 2 = 15% |

The focus of the paper lies in combinatorial geometry. | total 26. R =16, A =10 = 38% | ||

A substantial part of the paper deals with some question(s) of combinatorial geometry. | total 32. R =23, A = 9 = 28% | ||

Type of Question: | |||

| total 22. R =15, A = 7 = 32% | ||

| total 13. R =11, A = 2 = 15% | ||

| total 21. R =16, A = 5 = 24% | ||

| total 11. R = 7, A = 4 = 36% | ||

| total 21. R =13, A = 8 = 38% | ||

| total 4. R = 2, A = 2 = 50% | ||

| robustness // computational topology // Euler characteristic // robustness |

biomolecules | total 21. R =17, A = 4 = 19% |

cartography, GIS | total 18. R =12, A = 6 = 33% |

graphics | total 31. R =28, A = 3 = 10% |

CAD, computer-aided design (and manufacturing, etc.) | total 33. R =26, A = 7 = 21% |

image processing | total 16. R =14, A = 2 = 12% |

robotics | total 30. R =22, A = 8 = 27% |

statistics | total 10. R = 9, A = 1 = 10% |

other: | facility location // Data mining // packing // wireless // Mesh generation // computer games, animation // information retrieval // querying databases with aggregated data (e.g., VLSI, financial, etc.) // network design // graph drawing // simulation // graph encoding // sensor networks // database, scientific computing, mathematics // moving finite element methods // shape learning with minimal a priori knowledge // shape matching // Data mining // FEM calculation // scientific data analysis // simulation // Communication networks // games // manifold learning // Medicine, Radiation Therapy and Surgery // packing // visualization |

new algorithmic technique | total 61. R =44, A =17 = 28% |

new proof, new proof technique | total 38. R =28, A =10 = 26% |

new paradigm | total 18. R =12, A = 6 = 33% |

new problem | total 29. R =24, A = 5 = 17% |

new definition, new concept | total 30. R =23, A = 7 = 23% |

revisits or simplifies some old solution/problem | total 23. R =19, A = 4 = 17% |

none of the above | total 7. R = 3, A = 4 = 57% |

There is a video demonstrating the result of the paper. | total 5. R = 5, A = 0 = 0% |

There is an applet or computer program demonstrating the result of the paper. | total 22. R =17, A = 5 = 23% |

Algorithm | |||

algorithm design and analysis (theoretical level) | total 72. R =48, A =24 = 33% | ||

| total 6. R = 4, A = 2 = 33% | ||

| total 27. R =22, A = 5 = 19% | ||

| total 33. R =26, A = 7 = 21% | ||

| total 37. R =22, A =15 = 41% | ||

| total 0. R = 0, A = 0 =100% | ||

experimental or empirical comparison | total 19. R =18, A = 1 = 5% | ||

average-case analysis, probablilistic analysis | total 3. R = 2, A = 1 = 33% | ||

exact computation | total 27. R =20, A = 7 = 26% | ||

other approaches to robustness, numerical accuracy | total 12. R =12, A = 0 = 0% | ||

other implementation issues: | Algorithm is implemented and is planned to be released for public use in near future // certified topology (certified Delaunay graph) // adaptive approach to exact computation // certified topology | ||

software issues | total 3. R = 3, A = 0 = 0% | ||

Mathematics | |||

combinatorial geometry | total 42. R =30, A =12 = 29% | ||

geometry of curves and surfaces | total 28. R =20, A = 8 = 29% | ||

topology | total 22. R =17, A = 5 = 23% | ||

other geometric questions | total 16. R =12, A = 4 = 25% | ||

Applications | |||

applications outside geometry | data mining // robust statistics // Bioinformatics // GIS, Geographic Information Retrieval // meshing in scientific simulations, finite element methdos, visualizations // robotics, computer games // scientific simulations, reverse engineering, medical imaging // Subdivision of volume meshes, multivariate spline analysis // biomolecular unfolding // graph drawing // sum sets // computer graphics and robotics // robotics, spatial databases and GIS // Databases, Data streams, Sensor networks // database, geographical information systems, scientific computing, mathematics // scientific computing, graphics // Diagram Layout // protein structure analysis // level of detail // medical image segmentation, data mining // transcendental number theory // game theory // computational biology // Radiation Treatment of Cancer Patients // bioinformatics, graphics, statistics // scientific visualization such as volume rendering. Sorting has its own applications esp. in data stream mining problems // often used for visualization in the biological sciences // multimedia // visualization |

linear algebra (beyond elementary analytic geometry) | total 12. R =10, A = 2 = 17% |

algebra | total 22. R =16, A = 6 = 27% |

combinatorics | total 39. R =29, A =10 = 26% |

graph theory | total 22. R =15, A = 7 = 32% |

probability | total 15. R =11, A = 4 = 27% |

calculus, differential geometry | total 15. R =12, A = 3 = 20% |

topology | total 26. R =19, A = 7 = 27% |

other: | optimization // number theory // complexity theory // Mathematical Morphology, Fuzzy set // Mathematics for Voronoi and Delaunay geometry // approximation theory // geometry // geometry // integral geometry // transcendental number theory |

How many authors does the paper have? (raw data) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

How many authors are students? |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

How many authors work in academia (excluding students)? |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

How many authors work in industry? |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

From which country(ies) are the authors? | USA // India // france // usa // USA, Canada // Germany // Germany // Germany // Germany // US // Iran // Germany // Germany // Spain, Slovenia // Germany // switzerland // France // India, USA // Germany, Turkey, Austria // Germany // Greece // France // Austria, Germany, The Netherlands // China // USA // China // Iran // Israel, the Netherlands // Hong Kong, USA, Singapore // USA // Spain // USA // UK, UK, France // India, USA, Canada // US, Switzerland // U.S.A. // Germany, Sweden // Germany // france // Israel // China // Germany, USA // Hong Kong // USA, South Korea // USA // USA // USA // Iran, Netherlands // USA // France // USA, Germany // United States, Mexico // China, USA // USA // USA // Canada // U.S. // Spain // Germany // Canada // Canada,France // Israel, India // USA // UK // Hungary, USA // Switzerland, USA // USA, Belgium // USA // Belgium // USA // USA, USA // United States // Denmark, Netherlands // USA // Brazil // France, France, USA // Sweden, Iran, Greece // USA // singapore // US, France // Israel // Germany // Denmark // Korea // Korea, Germany, France // France, Norway, Germany // Israel // Russian Federation // germany, france // USA // China // India // France, Austria, USA // France, Austria // France, Austria // Japan // Israel // Russia // india, germany // Israel // US, S.Korea, Singapore // USA // USA // USA // US // Israel // China // Austria // USA // USA // china, canada // USA // United States // Cuba, Spain // United States // usa // Canada // Germany // Israel // Israel // US // Netherlands // Austria // Israel, Poland // Moldavia, Poland // Netherlands // usa // USA, Israel // The Netherlands // USA // USA // USA // US // US // USA // USA // USA // Chile // USA, Hungary |

The paper is characterized very well by the above classification. | total 78. R =59, A =19 = 24% |

The paper does not fit at all into this classification. | total 9. R = 8, A = 1 = 11% |

Anything else I would like to say: (Comments about the submission process or about the conference itself, suggestions for future conferences) | This form does not provide ample options. For example:
1. Running time (no option to specify results that are linear/polynomial in one parameter - an important one, while treating other parameters as constant, etc.)
2. # of authors does not account for part time students working in industry (therefore numbers dont add up).
3. Final Question about the paper - only the two extremes are available as options (very well OR does not fit at all). same reviews apply to our submission on semi-algebraic curves Some aspects of the paper are not characterized particularly well by the above classification. Covering, packing, and independent set are standard optimization problems that can appear in a geometric setting. Here the optimization problem was covering. The full glory of the algorithmic setting was "abstractly geometric", as in the VC dimension. Such a category might be an alternative in the "dimension" category. Nice questionnaire. Issues that might come up at the business meeting might also be considered here, in an advisory way. For example, a poll on conference location would have a different bias than the one at the business meeting. Submission via pointer to arXiv preprint would encourage use of the arXiv server, simplify the job of collecting submissions, and underline the peculiarity of submitting to a conference in order to publicize a paper that is already easily available world-wide. Some pre-submission details whether emphasis is on certain applied / theory issues would be helpful -- e.g., will there be a biogeometry session? The submission process was much smoother in comparison to the process in last year's SoCG. As for the length restriction: If the submission is slightly longer than the limit (say the references end only in page 11), this is still OK. However, in case of major deviations, the submission should be rejected. However, I prefer that the submission have the final format used in the proceedings. This way the final version is likely to be more similar to the refereed one. The submission process was clear and easy, but the restriction of not being able to change the abstract later makes an early registration less attractive. I wonder if you have statistics about the time between the first registration step and the second. Submission process: I disagree on rejecting papers on formal grounds without looking at proportionality or appropriateness. Not all proofs need to be there, but the important or non-obvious should if the statement might otherwise be questionable or may lead to a rejected paper. Also the page numbers need a limitation, but 11 instead of 10 pages (separate title page ;-) are not the issue. In particular since we have appendices, which I find important. I would appreciate a more realistic page limit oriented at the final proceeding space, either by submitting in this final style or some equivalent larger page budget. For refereeing, a larger page budget but with 11pt and sufficient margins would be more convenient. Please add explanation to the above fields. Some of them are not self explanatory. The paper uses BSP trees, Segment trees, and Sweep Planes heavily. Thus, it could be considered a data structure paper, as well as an algorithms paper. This paper presents one aspect of my Ph.D. thesis. This survey was very annoying. This survey is even more annoying the second time around. annoying poll! Part I: I think one answer was missing for: How did you like the two-stage electronic submission procedure? Answer: It was OK (the listed ones were either on one side or the other) A general wish on future submission procedures: that they are as easy as possible, and don't take more than 10 (real) minutes. Part II. I think this survey could be further improved and also made shorter (regarding final question above). A wish about the statistics which will be prepared: to report accurately on the number of algorithms which will be never implemented. I hope the statistics will be made available and distributed to the participants during the symposium (or at least posted on the web). Regarding the two-stage submission procedure: I cannot remember if it was cumbersome. It was two months ago. About the format: as an author, both PS and PDF are fine with me. As a referee I much prefer PDF because the files are smaller and because printing errors are much less frequent than with PS. Questions about criteria for accepting/rejecting submissions: I have strong opinions about it but I have doubts about whether it is appropriate to give such opinions while the PC is still at work. It would be absurd to _require_ that the submission be formatted differently than the final paper. And a huge waste of time, too. The proposed algorithm is currently implemented as a prototype. However, we expect that the implementation will be at the stage of serious applications around the time of SoCG conference. The submitted work is a generalization of some earlier works. I had trouble expressing this fact in this questionnaire. The offered categories reflect a traditional view of the work done in computational geometry and need some expansion into computational topology. Quite a few times I would wish there were additional categories. The above questions is great, but it clearly has many holes for our particular paper. I would be happy to suggest refinements of your categories for this purpose. Thanks, Chee Regarding last question in Part I: I do not think it would be practical to impose that papers have ALL PROOFS, given the "extended abstract" nature of the SoCG conference submission. But authors should be ENCOURAGED to provide an arXiv or url link to as-complete-as-possible versions of their papers, to help the committee in making the decision. no author can have more than two papers in one conf submission copied from submission on algebraic curves Submission process was great. Collecting feedback and statistics is a good idea too. |