Consequently, a researcher who publishes a number of papers of insufficient quality will find that his CV lists all those mistakes as papers that were published but never accepted. This will certainly weigh against him at promotion time, since it indicates a lack of sound judgement. Consequently, it is in the best interest of researchers to exercise self-control.
One of the buttons at the bottom of ETAI:s main web page gives access to the list of articles per author. These lists will be set up so that they include all articles that this author has published through the ETAI system, also showing their acceptance status (accepted, rejected, pending).
In traditional journals, the author (and the author's advisor) has the possibility of delegating responsibility to the journal editor or conference program committee. "We can always send in that paper and see what happens, at least we'll get some feedback". Such thinking is not very much punished in the present system; it will be in the system used by ETAI.
Certainly, all those senior researchers who feel the burden of reviewing large numbers of research papers, many of them of insufficient quality, and observing that all of this is accounted for as "service to the community" will welcome a development towards more self-control, fewer papers to reject, and consequently -- higher acceptance rates. In fact, the present situation that we have conferences with an 80% rejection rate should be an indication that something is wrong in the present system, and not merely be quoted as a reason for pride in the quality of those conferences.
Click to restore previous contents or "how to submit" contents of this frame.