# Resisting Rigor Mortis: How to Revitalize Computer Science Conferences

## Resisting Rigor Mortis: How to Revitalize Computer Science Conferences

The world of computer science is in constant flux, with innovation happening at breakneck speed. Yet, a recent post on the ACM BlogCACM, titled “Reversing the Fossilization of Computer Science Conferences,” raises a critical question: are our academic conferences keeping pace? With a score of 29 and 19 descendants (indicating active discussion) on platforms like Hacker News, the piece authored by “tosh” has clearly struck a nerve. The central concern revolves around the potential for CS conferences to become stagnant, losing relevance and failing to adequately represent the cutting-edge advancements shaping the field.

The term “fossilization” here isn’t meant to be taken literally, of course. Instead, it paints a picture of conferences that become overly reliant on established norms, resistant to new ideas, and slow to adapt to the evolving landscape of research and development. This manifests in several potential ways, including:

* **Overemphasis on established methodologies:** Conferences may prioritize papers that adhere to well-worn research paradigms, inadvertently stifling innovation that challenges existing assumptions.
* **Narrowly defined topics and tracks:** The traditional categories within computer science may not fully encompass the interdisciplinary nature of modern research, potentially excluding novel work that bridges different fields.
* **Lack of diversity in perspectives:** An echo chamber effect can arise if conferences predominantly feature researchers from the same institutions, backgrounds, or geographical regions, limiting the exchange of diverse ideas.
* **Cumbersome and outdated review processes:** Slow and inefficient review processes can discourage submissions from researchers working on rapidly developing topics, favoring established researchers with ample time for extensive revisions.

So, how do we “reverse the fossilization” of computer science conferences? While the original blog post delves into specifics, some potential solutions include:

* **Embracing interdisciplinary research:** Actively soliciting and promoting submissions that bridge different areas of computer science, as well as those that integrate computer science with other disciplines like biology, economics, or art.
* **Experimenting with new formats:** Moving beyond traditional paper presentations and exploring alternative formats like workshops, hackathons, or interactive demos to foster collaboration and hands-on learning.
* **Promoting open access and transparency:** Encouraging open access publication of conference proceedings and implementing transparent review processes to increase accessibility and accountability.
* **Actively seeking diversity in representation:** Implementing strategies to encourage participation from researchers from underrepresented groups, including women, minorities, and researchers from developing countries.
* **Streamlining the review process:** Exploring alternative review models, such as rapid review or open review, to accelerate the feedback cycle and encourage submissions of more timely research.

The conversation surrounding the “fossilization” of computer science conferences highlights a crucial challenge facing the academic community. By actively addressing these concerns and embracing innovation in conference design and structure, we can ensure that these gatherings remain vibrant hubs of knowledge exchange, driving the field forward and fostering a more inclusive and dynamic research environment. The future of computer science depends on our ability to constantly adapt and evolve, and that includes ensuring our conferences do the same.