The Japan Society for Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (JSSAC) is also one of the organizations contributing to the efforts of ISSAC. Consequently, the option (1) seems impractical (though my current schedule does not permit me to engage in discussions with the board members of JSSAC).
In my opinion, the ACM has its own established reputation, therefore, the option (2), which involves maintaining the current brand of ISSAC/CCA, appears to be a more favorable choice. Furthermore, as a member of an interdisciplinary department, I believe that maintaining the easily recognizable brand of the ACM offers significant benefits, especially for other faculty members. This perspective further strengthens the argument for the option (2), which is to preserve the current brand of ISSAC/CCA. Moreover, it may be necessary to consider running the ISSAC in cooperation with ACM, in SIGACT.
As for ISSAC, is it not possible to separate the issue of who primarily hosts ISSAC from what to do with SIGSAM? I think the option (3) for ISSAC is a good suggestion. Is there no option to support this from within SIGACT?
Evolution of SIGSAM and ISSAC
-
emiris@athenarc.gr
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2024 2:17 pm
Re: Evolution of SIGSAM and ISSAC
Dear all,
I'm in favor of maintaining some kind of relationship with ACM, therefore option 1 or 2.
ACM gives us recognition beyond the borders of our community! this is especially needed by young scientists who have their CV's examined by committee that may not appreciate the tradition and value of ISSAC.
Meeting the financial requirements of ISSAC organization via sponsors is doable. I recently organized Symposium of Comp. Geometry in Athens and "easily" raised about 15KE by sponsors.
The relationship with ACM also helps ISSAC maintain a strong position within Computer science and Informatics, which is important, re: Richard Fateman's post. Given the progress of math conferences and workshops covering areas of computer algebra and symbolic computation (esp. SIAM's AAG activities) it is necessary to maintain a strong computational identity for ISSAC.
Best,
Ioannis Emiris
Prof at U. Athens, and President of Athena Research Center
I'm in favor of maintaining some kind of relationship with ACM, therefore option 1 or 2.
ACM gives us recognition beyond the borders of our community! this is especially needed by young scientists who have their CV's examined by committee that may not appreciate the tradition and value of ISSAC.
Meeting the financial requirements of ISSAC organization via sponsors is doable. I recently organized Symposium of Comp. Geometry in Athens and "easily" raised about 15KE by sponsors.
The relationship with ACM also helps ISSAC maintain a strong position within Computer science and Informatics, which is important, re: Richard Fateman's post. Given the progress of math conferences and workshops covering areas of computer algebra and symbolic computation (esp. SIAM's AAG activities) it is necessary to maintain a strong computational identity for ISSAC.
Best,
Ioannis Emiris
Prof at U. Athens, and President of Athena Research Center
Re: Evolution of SIGSAM and ISSAC
I think we, the SIGSAM members, need to communicate the value of SIGSAM and ACM publications better to those who are not members of SIGSAM.
I invite others to also do so.
SIGSAM publishes CCA (Communications in Computer Algebra) which is the main forum for communication in computer algebra and hosts the website where CCA is stored. CCA publishes the extended abstracts for ISSAC posters and the extended abstracts for the ISSAC software session presentations as well as research articles and other articles. With option (3), we lose CCA which will be a major blow to our research community.
The ACM conference badge is recognized in the computer science community. I am in a mathematics department and I have managed to educate my colleagues on the value of ACM publications. Of course part of that value is the "ISSAC" name which would not go away if we chose option (3).
In support of option (1), charging $150 for registration is reasonable; my hotel room at the Aloft hotel in Raleigh cost $199 + taxes PER NIGHT. Also, many of us can charge the registration fee to our research grants or departments, so it is not a personal cost. Perhaps a free SIGSAM membership could be included with that $150 fee.
In support of option (2), I do not think SIGACT would discourage practical software development and application as suggested at the meeting. On the contrary, I think they would welcome it; knowing that we also have a focus on theory and complexity.
I prefer one of options 1 and 2.
I served as ISSAC general chair in 2013 and have published over 20 papers at ISSAC.
Michael Monagan
I invite others to also do so.
SIGSAM publishes CCA (Communications in Computer Algebra) which is the main forum for communication in computer algebra and hosts the website where CCA is stored. CCA publishes the extended abstracts for ISSAC posters and the extended abstracts for the ISSAC software session presentations as well as research articles and other articles. With option (3), we lose CCA which will be a major blow to our research community.
The ACM conference badge is recognized in the computer science community. I am in a mathematics department and I have managed to educate my colleagues on the value of ACM publications. Of course part of that value is the "ISSAC" name which would not go away if we chose option (3).
In support of option (1), charging $150 for registration is reasonable; my hotel room at the Aloft hotel in Raleigh cost $199 + taxes PER NIGHT. Also, many of us can charge the registration fee to our research grants or departments, so it is not a personal cost. Perhaps a free SIGSAM membership could be included with that $150 fee.
In support of option (2), I do not think SIGACT would discourage practical software development and application as suggested at the meeting. On the contrary, I think they would welcome it; knowing that we also have a focus on theory and complexity.
I prefer one of options 1 and 2.
I served as ISSAC general chair in 2013 and have published over 20 papers at ISSAC.
Michael Monagan
Re: Evolution of SIGSAM and ISSAC
It is worth issuing a reminder that the burden of option 1 will be borne primarily by individuals who both (a) author an ISSAC paper and (b) register to attend ISSAC. Having done both (a) and (b) at ISSAC ‘23 and ‘24, I frankly already found the $400+ registration fee to be overpriced. Now, with the proposed APCs and registration total nearing $600, I expect there will probably be much better ways for me to spend my limited start-up funds in 2025.
Needless to say, the APC requirement will exclude authors whose institutions do not subscribe to the ACM digital library, just as increased registration costs will push out even more of those lacking sufficient grant support. Is this really the kind of community you want to cultivate?
From a more pragmatic standpoint, it seems that (completely ignoring SIGSAM’s budget woes) ISSAC itself is barely breaking even. Arguments in favor of option 1 seem to assume that attendance numbers will remain constant so as to bring in more revenue. This assumption is dubious.
Having also served as publicity chair in 2024, I’ve dealt a bit with the substandard service we can expect to receive if ISSAC stays with the ACM. (Please note that there are other committee members with more experience and knowledge about this than me, and I can of course only speak for myself.) They have outsourced the basic ingredients needed to run the conference (eg. registration) to the lowest bidders, who have zero interest in seeing this community succeed. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no accountability for how the overhead and extra fees are being spent.
I vote for option 3 (followed by 2.)
Tim Duff
University of Missouri
Needless to say, the APC requirement will exclude authors whose institutions do not subscribe to the ACM digital library, just as increased registration costs will push out even more of those lacking sufficient grant support. Is this really the kind of community you want to cultivate?
From a more pragmatic standpoint, it seems that (completely ignoring SIGSAM’s budget woes) ISSAC itself is barely breaking even. Arguments in favor of option 1 seem to assume that attendance numbers will remain constant so as to bring in more revenue. This assumption is dubious.
Having also served as publicity chair in 2024, I’ve dealt a bit with the substandard service we can expect to receive if ISSAC stays with the ACM. (Please note that there are other committee members with more experience and knowledge about this than me, and I can of course only speak for myself.) They have outsourced the basic ingredients needed to run the conference (eg. registration) to the lowest bidders, who have zero interest in seeing this community succeed. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no accountability for how the overhead and extra fees are being spent.
I vote for option 3 (followed by 2.)
Tim Duff
University of Missouri
Re: Evolution of SIGSAM and ISSAC
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to suggest one more point of view on the situation to complement all the important points raised in this thread.
While our problem right now is how to save SIGSAM from bankruptcy, one may say that these financial issues are a symptom while the fundamental reason seems to be that SIGSAM is quite small compared to other SIGs. I think it may be helpful to discuss the treatment of the symptom and the size issue at the same time. In particular, my feeling is that
Enjoy the summer!
Gleb Pogudin (France)
I would like to suggest one more point of view on the situation to complement all the important points raised in this thread.
While our problem right now is how to save SIGSAM from bankruptcy, one may say that these financial issues are a symptom while the fundamental reason seems to be that SIGSAM is quite small compared to other SIGs. I think it may be helpful to discuss the treatment of the symptom and the size issue at the same time. In particular, my feeling is that
- If we want SIGSAM to become significantly larger (Richard Fateman wrote a detailed comment in this thread arguing that there is a room for significant growth, and I find this convincing), then being an independent SIG (as opposed to option 2) and having an affiliation with ACM (as opposed to option 3) may be quite important. While ACMs help with running an established conference such as ISSAC may be considered overpriced, this may easily become more worth it if we would like to establish new conferences/journals. Note that having one more ISSAC-size conference would substantially reduce the impact of the ACM fees on the registration fees.
- If we want SIGSAM to continue more-or-less as in the past 5 years, that is, running one established conference ISSAC and having one journal CCA, then we could do this as well within SIGACT but without raising the fees.
Enjoy the summer!
Gleb Pogudin (France)
Re: Evolution of SIGSAM and ISSAC
Dear colleagues,
I support Option 1.
While I understand that many may disagree with some of ACM's decisions, having an ACM Special Interest Group (SIG) is essential for symbolic computation and computer algebra to be recognized as an independent research topic within ACM. This recognition is crucial for a smaller research community like ours.
As several active researchers expressed during the ISSAC conference, having papers published in ACM proceedings (such as ISSAC) is important, as it can influence evaluations and funding applications in some places. Merging with another SIG might keep ISSAC proceedings within ACM, but our topic could lose its individual recognition and risk being diluted within the broader theoretical computer science.
Regarding the budget, I agree there is room for improvement:
-- In addition to seek sponsorships, we could introduce a “gold” membership status for those willing to pay a higher membership fee, say $100, to support SIGSAM.
-- Considering the rising costs of hotels, flights, etc., adding $150 to the registration fee is not unreasonable, especially when weighing the benefits of keeping ISSAC within ACM.
As for the ACM open access policy, I’ve noticed that many universities have already formed agreements with ACM. I expect that most (if not all) institutions affiliated by our community members will do the same, which would mean that publication costs would be covered by the institutions rather than the authors. Later on we can discuss setting up a fellowship to support authors who are not affiliated with such institutions.
Wen-shin Lee
I support Option 1.
While I understand that many may disagree with some of ACM's decisions, having an ACM Special Interest Group (SIG) is essential for symbolic computation and computer algebra to be recognized as an independent research topic within ACM. This recognition is crucial for a smaller research community like ours.
As several active researchers expressed during the ISSAC conference, having papers published in ACM proceedings (such as ISSAC) is important, as it can influence evaluations and funding applications in some places. Merging with another SIG might keep ISSAC proceedings within ACM, but our topic could lose its individual recognition and risk being diluted within the broader theoretical computer science.
Regarding the budget, I agree there is room for improvement:
-- In addition to seek sponsorships, we could introduce a “gold” membership status for those willing to pay a higher membership fee, say $100, to support SIGSAM.
-- Considering the rising costs of hotels, flights, etc., adding $150 to the registration fee is not unreasonable, especially when weighing the benefits of keeping ISSAC within ACM.
As for the ACM open access policy, I’ve noticed that many universities have already formed agreements with ACM. I expect that most (if not all) institutions affiliated by our community members will do the same, which would mean that publication costs would be covered by the institutions rather than the authors. Later on we can discuss setting up a fellowship to support authors who are not affiliated with such institutions.
Wen-shin Lee