In this corner of the ring, the famous IEEE International Conference on Image Processing in its 17th edition, parallel sessions, poster sessions, plenary talks, exhibition hall, so many sponsors that they can't list them, more than a thousand attendees expected, and this year so many submissions that its PC was desperately looking for reviewers from the watermarking community -- even though some of your favorite reviewers didn't get any content security paper to review: that's the sad point in striving (or not being able) to manage such a huge event.
In the opposite corner, the small and dying Information Hiding workshop, single threaded session, no fancy poster, no big head speaking, no exhibition hall, one unique sponsor (Technicolor) and so few submissions that the acceptance rate is likely to be larger than 1/2.
In the opposite corner, the small and dying Information Hiding workshop, single threaded session, no fancy poster, no big head speaking, no exhibition hall, one unique sponsor (Technicolor) and so few submissions that the acceptance rate is likely to be larger than 1/2.
Let us look at previous fights (thanks Google Scholar for the statistics):
- Barni (SPIE 109 cit. , ICIP 87 cit., SPIE 77 cit., SPIE 77 cit.)
- Cachin (IH 425 cit.),
- Cox (IH 347 cit., ICIP 117cit.),
- Delp. (ACM 133 cit., SPIE 123 cit., SPIE 115 cit.)
- Fridrich (SPIE 256 cit., IH 239 cit., IH. 214 cit., ICIP 160 cit., ICIP 100 cit.),
- Kalker (SPIE 199 cit., ICIP 96 cit.)
- Kutter (ICIP 233 cit.)
- Wong (ICIP 310 cit.)
So, which one of two will you attend?
Well, that big foreseen acceptance rate for IH is not very attractive. Some researchers discard such conferences, or are not given credits for their papers published in conference with so big acceptance rate. This is why I say "dying" IH: in our sad times, ROI on advertising might be considered more important than sound research.
HOWEVER, your favorite watermasked cucumbers have been reviewing for both events... and frankly, from what they've read, the IH papers were far, far better.
We do not say that there were all great, but significantly better than ICIP submissions on average (not to say: median). Therefore, judging a conference from its acceptance rate is just as silly as when judgments go on upon only one criterion (notice the alliteration).
Well, that big foreseen acceptance rate for IH is not very attractive. Some researchers discard such conferences, or are not given credits for their papers published in conference with so big acceptance rate. This is why I say "dying" IH: in our sad times, ROI on advertising might be considered more important than sound research.
HOWEVER, your favorite watermasked cucumbers have been reviewing for both events... and frankly, from what they've read, the IH papers were far, far better.
We do not say that there were all great, but significantly better than ICIP submissions on average (not to say: median). Therefore, judging a conference from its acceptance rate is just as silly as when judgments go on upon only one criterion (notice the alliteration).
Conclusion: if you are solely interested in data hiding and content security, you'd better go to IH. Period.
Miss Cucumber.
Miss Cucumber.
No comments:
Post a Comment