🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Bw2Hq3.9IJ@metaflow.com>, rschnapp@metaflow.com (Russ Schnapp) says:

> |> Is it purely a historical reason that the ACM publishes its Transactions
> |> separately from the SIGs or are there other reasons?
> 
> SIG newsletters and Transactions journals have two, completely
> different purposes.  The newsletters contain unrefereed papers as well
> as SIG administrative matters.  The Transactions are official,
> refereed, scientific journals.  If you see a paper in Computer
> Graphics, you can use its results, but remember that it has not been
> peer-reviewed.  Ostensibly, you were able to gain access to the paper
> that much sooner, since the review process can be lengthy.  Papers in
> Transactions carry more weight, since they have been reviewed, but take
> correspondingly longer to see print.  My understanding is that as far
> as academic "publishing" is concerned, in most universities, only
> peer-reviewed journals count.

This is certainly true of the non-conference issues of Computer Graphics,
though SIGGRAPH does more "filtering" (to avoid calling it refereeing) of
articles than do some SIGs, I think.  But the annual SIGGRAPH conference
proceedings, which appears as an issue of Computer Graphics, is still
referred to as *the* premier research publication in computer graphics.
I believe the original question in this thread came from someone wanting
to compare TOG with the conference proceedings.

But there's another point here -- SIGs are perfectly capable of publishing
other things besides newsletters, and this writer seems to question why
the Transactions publications are done by ACM without SIG involvement.
This is a good question, but I'm not able to answer it.  Anyone really
know?

-- Steve Cunningham