Most of these conferences are open access and make a good effort to get the papers they publish to the widest audience possible. Google scholar typically hot-links the PDFs, and keeps them invisible link-wise. This is slowly eroding the conference's "web reputation" (based on links primarily) and keeps funneling users to the big corps, something we really don't need these days ;)
Please consider including best paper awards from NeurIPS (e.g., https://nips.cc/Conferences/2017/Awards).
As a note, the first paper listed when it's 1. 2. 3. was the "best" paper (the others were runners up).
If the giants would like to do us all a massive favour: pay the IEEE and ACM for worldwide, perpetual, ongoing rights to their libraries. Because right now that vast ocean of literature is basically invisible to practitioners.
I'm not sure what you mean - this list seems to contain a healthy mix of academic and industrial work. Big names like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, are all represented.
And why is it invisible to practitioners? Most tech companies will have a membership of these libraries anyway.
That does not jibe with my experience at all. In fact, I don't think that, in 20 years, I've ever worked at a company that had company-wide access to IEEE / ACM / etc. libraries. Or if any of them did, they didn't try very hard to make it known.
I'm focusing here on access to the publications, not on the email domain of the authors.
> And why is it invisible to practitioners? Most tech companies will have a membership of these libraries anyway.
Not everyone in tech works for a tech company.
Google Scholar the title in quotes and you will almost always find either the arXiv PDF or a version from the author website, conveniently linked along with well-formatted bibliographic information.
also re ACM, an unlimited-access subscription to every ACM publication runs $198/year with an ACM professional membership (cheaper for students), if you have a moral objection to just using sci-hub.
don't know if there's something similar for IEEE.
things are way better in CS than basically any other field. not to say there aren't huge obstacles to connecting researchers and practitioners. but access to journals doesn't have to be one, once you know the same tricks grad students use when not on campus wifi.
Gotta get the work out there ourselves instead of hoping the big companies will do it for us. Probably best to straight-up build stuff with it rather than telling people about it. Also, they'll listen more when someone brings data that improves their operations.
Can those of you who did postgrad CS tell us how much of the research is actually done by grad students vs professors?
Like 95% of research is done by grad students.
A good prof in my mind acts a mentor, providing frequent feedback on the research and contributes to writing of the paper. The feedback is often invaluable, but still just a small part in the overall amount of work compared to what the student puts in.
...but most of these first authors (the people formally credited with doing the real work) are graduate students, so how does that fit in with your theory?
Google was founded, quite literally, out of studying the graph of literature. Here's one way they can move that original vision a little closer to reality.
(If anyone has details, please chime in.)
- Pixar had a pretty long road to industry, but it has deep academic roots. Co-founder Ed Catmull published significant original research in computer graphics.
- Yahoo was also started by 2 Stanford grad students, although it wasn't based on any research that I'm aware of.
- Werner Vogels was one of my professors at Cornell, doing work on distributed computing, e.g. on gossip protocols, and he is now CTO of Amazon.
- Guido van Rossum worked in Andrew Tanenbaum's lab (a professor whose OS book you might have), and Python was at least partly inspired by that experience. Python now runs much of the industry :)
It would indeed be nice to see a list of "papers that companies are based on".
The PageRank paper is well known (although Google search no longer resembles it). I suspect you can do the same thing for VMWare and Pixar, at the very least. Those two companies relied on significant technical advances.
EDIT: Also Cisco and Stanford:
This goes all the way back to Hewlett Packard, although I'm not sure if they're closer to Yahoo's case (same people) or Google's case (same subject area):
But if their work is published by the IEEE CS or the ACM, you may not be able to read it. This situation has improved a lot in recent years as many authors will post copies on websites they control. But that doesn't account for the decades of work otherwise unavailable for direct reference.
Some of those are obvious if you've been in the field a while, but I think it's notable that big names like Intel, Harvard and NASA are so lowly ranked when compared to others on the list.
Also Notable, none of the big names in the field won any of these: Jeff Dean, Geoff Hinton, Yann Lecun, Andrew Ng, Yoshua Bengio, Jurgen Schmidhuber etc...
Andrew Ng has too: http://www.robotics.stanford.edu/~ang/papers.php
This list just contains a very small number of conferences.
Related, the most cited CS papers (although very dated at this point ...):
Quite a few faculty job postings have even been for CS Ed researchers :)