in;the;virtual;extension
DOI: 10.1145/1839676.1839679
in the Virtual extension
To ensure the timely publication of articles, Communications created the Virtual Extension (VE)
to expand the page limitations of the print edition by bringing readers the same high-quality
articles in an online-only format. VE articles undergo the same rigorous review process as those
in the print edition and are accepted for publication on merit. The following synopses are from
articles now available in their entirety to ACM members via the Digital Library.
contributed article
DOI:;10.1145/1839676.1839702
supporting ubiquitous Location
information in interworking
3G and Wireless networks
Massimo Ficco, Roberto Pietrantuono,
and Stefano Russo
Users and wireless ISPs could tap location-based services across networks belonging
to other ISPs to create ubiquitous personal
networks.
Location-based services have
emerged as a main interest of wireless
ISPs, or WISPs, and network operators.
Positioning mobile devices in the third
generation (3G) of wireless communication
networks (such as the Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System) is crucial
to many commercial services, including
location applications that utilize accurate
positioning (such as handset navigation
tracking and locating points of interest);
public and private emergency services,
calling firefighters, medical teams, and
emergency roadside assistance; and future
applications (such as fraud detection,
location-sensitive billing, and advertising).
However, positioning techniques vary
by accuracy, implementation cost, and
application scenarios (such as indoor
and outdoor). WISPs can exploit their
availability in order to locate their users in
heterogeneous environments by using the
most suitable positioning technique in a
manner transparent to the user.
The recent interworking between 3G
systems and wireless networks (such
as IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth) allows
WISPs to leverage wireless networks for
localization purposes. Wireless hotspots in
public and private places (such as homes,
offices, airports, shopping malls, arenas,
hotels, and libraries), along with the new
generation of mobile devices supporting
multiple positioning technologies (such
as GPS, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and RFId),
fosters WISP development of integrated
positioning systems.
contributed article
DOI:;10.1145/1839676.1839701
Relative status of Journal
and conference Publications
in computer science
Jill Freyne, Lorcan Coyle, Barry Smyth,
and Padraig Cunningham
Citations represent a trustworthy measure
of CS research quality—whether in articles
in conference proceedings or in CS journals.
Though computer scientists agree that
conference publications enjoy greater
status in CS than in other disciplines, there
is little quantitative evidence to support this
view. The importance of journal publication
in academic promotion makes it a highly
personal issue, since focusing exclusively
on journal papers misses many significant
papers published by CS conferences.
This article aims to quantify the relative
importance of CS journal and conference
papers, showing that those in leading
conferences match the impact of those
in mid-ranking journals and surpass the
impact of those in journals in the bottom
half of the Thompson Reuters rankings
( http://www.isiknowledge.com) for impact
measured in terms of citations in Google
Scholar. We also show that poor correlation
between this measure and conference
acceptance rates indicates conference
publication is an inefficient market where
venues equally challenging in terms of
rejection rates offer quite different returns
in terms of citations.
How to measure the quality of academic
research and performance of particular
researchers has always involved debate.
Many CS researchers feel that performance
assessment is an exercise in futility, in
part because academic research cannot be
boiled down to a set of simple performance
metrics, and any attempt to introduce
them would expose the entire research
enterprise to manipulation and gaming.
on the other hand, many researchers want
some reasonable way to evaluate academic
performance, arguing that even an
imperfect system sheds light on research
quality, helping funding agencies and
tenure committees make more informed
decisions.
viewpoint
DOI:;10.1145/1839676.1839703
in support of computer science
teachers and the csta
Duncan Buell
A number of recent articles and comments
have discussed the imbalance between
enrollment and opportunities in computer
science and the under-enrollments by
minorities and women. An ongoing thread
in Peter denning’s Communications
columns and elsewhere concerns the
identity of the discipline to which we
belong. As the national representative
from universities to the board of the
Computer Science Teachers Association
(CSTA), I continually see the question of
the identity of our discipline both within
and external to our field.
The identity of computer science is
nowhere more important to the discipline
of computer science than in the K– 12
school system. We can instruct our own
students in the nature of the discipline, but
those we so instruct will only be those who
first choose to come to us. If we want more
students, and if we want to be understood
for what we are, we must clarify the
message about computer science that all
students will receive as part of their K– 12
education.
Even if one does not believe that
“computer science” should be taught
in the K– 12 system, it is nonetheless
necessary for us to be involved in
defining for the schools that which is
called “computer science.” There will
be courses in Photoshop, Web design,
office tools, A+ certification, networking,
and such, and there will be (a smaller
number of) courses in Visual Basic, C++,
or even Java. The simple fact is that these
courses will exist in the schools, and there
is nothing fundamentally wrong with
that. What is a problem is for students
to be misled into thinking that these
are all indistinguishable and all equally
describable as “computer science.”