In 2005, I had a conversation with a
member of ACM’s Publications Board
about the (then nascent) idea of revi-
talizing Communications. I was very
pessimistic then, saying, “It cannot
be done.” About a year later, in the fall
of 2006, I undertook that very task.
Now, it is March of 2009, and we can
say, “Yes, it can be done.”
Why was I wrong in 2005? To start,
I underestimated the determination
of ACM’s leadership to turn Communi-
cations around. I also underestimated
the willingness of Communications’
staff to undertake a radical change in
the way they go about their jobs. Most
of all, I underestimated ACM mem-
bership’s intense desire for change
and willingness to volunteer their ef-
fort toward the development of a flag-
ship publication of which we can all
be proud.
In my January 2008 editorial, I de-
scribed Communications’ editorial
model as we envisioned it. Since I view
this publication as a joint project be-
tween our Editorial Board and ACM’s
membership, it is important, I be-
lieve, that our editorial model be well
understood. In January, I explained
how our News and Viewpoints boards
operate.
Our Practice Board, chaired by Ste-
phen Bourne, with James Maurer as
publisher, has a dual personality. On
one hand, it is part of Communica-
tions’ Editorial Board, with respon-
sibility for developing the content
for the Practice section. On the other
hand, that same board is also Queue’s
Editorial Board, with the closely re-
lated, but independent, task of devel-
oping practitioner content for ACM,
primarily through the Queue Portal,
at queue.acm.org. This board thrives
on intense face-to-face interaction,
meeting monthly to discuss emerg-
ing technologies. They identify topics
of current interest to software archi-
tects, project leaders, IT managers,
and corporate decision makers. The
board also identifies potential au-
thors and then commissions them to
develop articles, under the guidance
of board members and invited guest
experts.
The Contributed Articles Board,
chaired by Al Aho and Georg Gottlob,
operates like a traditional editorial
board of a scientific journal. Unso-
licited manuscripts are submitted
via Manuscript Central, a Web-based
system for facilitating a fully online
review process. As this board handles
both Contributed and Review articles,
the co-chairs assign each submission
to an associate editor, who oversees
a scholarly review process. The co-
chairs and associate editors can de-
cide to decline a paper without fur-
ther review, if they judge it does not
fit our new content model.
The bar for acceptance is very high;
articles must be of the highest quality
and reach out to a very broad techni-
cal audience. A significant fraction of
the submissions fit Communications’
previous editorial model and must be
declined. A major task of this board
is to encourage submissions by au-
thors inspired by the new editorial
model. It is fair to say that attracting
high-quality Contributed and Review
articles is an ongoing effort.
The Research Highlights Board
aims to leverage the unique feature of
computing research from our highly
selective conferences. Their goal is
to provide readers with a collection
of outstanding research articles, se-
lected from the broad spectrum of
computing-research conferences,
and reposition them for a far more di-
versified audience. Submissions are
first nominated by Board Members or
Approved Nominating Organizations
and are subject to final selection by
the Board. Authors are invited to re-
write and expand the scope of their
research papers to address Communi-
cations’ broad readership.
Each of these articles is accompa-
nied by a Technical Perspective essay,
providing readers with a one-page
overview of the underlying motiva-
tion and important ideas of the fea-
tured research as well as its scientific
and practical significance. Technical
Perspective essays are written by ris-
ing stars and established luminaries
invited by the Board. The challenge
for this Board is to develop a reach
into hundreds of computing-research
conferences. So far, only about 10
ACM SIGs have applied to become Ap-
proved Nominating Organizations.
We hope to see more SIGs applying
this year, as well as non-ACM organi-
zations.
This, in a nutshell, is how Com-
munications’ editorial work is carried
out. I’ve also tried to give you a sense
of the ongoing challenges. Producing
a top-notch flagship publication is an
evolving project. I am pleased with
the progress we have made so far, and
am acutely aware of the efforts re-
quired to sustain and improve upon
the quality of this magazine. Yes, it
can be done, if we, ACM members,
collectively shoulder this effort.
Moshe Y. Vardi, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
References:
Archives