Hi Guys, First, I say Happy New Year to all of you. The reason for my post is because I need your advice with regard to the IEEE engineering society. Here's why. In the January 2012 issue of the IEEE's Signal Processing Magazine, the president of the IEEE's Signal Processing Society (SPS) wrote an interesting editorial. He stated that the SPS, and the IEEE in general, needs to shift some of its focus away from the needs of university professors and start directing more of its attention to the needs of working DSP engineers. He justified his concern by writing something akin to, "Are not the contributions of working DSP engineers (DSP practitioners) just as valuable as those of us involved in scholarly pursuits?" I thought, "My my, an IEEE officer who seems to care about working DSP engineers. How refreshing." Last week I E-mailed the SPS president and told him I appreciated his editorial, and then I started ranting and raving about how I believe the IEEE has turned their backs on day-to-day working DSP engineers. Well, ...the SPS president replied to my E-mail and asked me directly, "What can the SPS do to be of more benefit to working DSP engineers?" He said there are a number of SPS officers trying to answer that question and they seek the opinions of practicing DSP engineers. It's because of that question that I now ask for advice from you guys here on comp.dsp. What would you suggest to the IEEE with regard to how they could be of more value to you? What services do you think the IEEE should provide to guys like us? If you have any suggestions/comments on how the IEEE can better serve us I'll add your suggestions to mine and forward them to the SPS president. (I won't give the SPS president any names, I'll just say the suggestions came from the subscribers to the comp.dsp newsgroup.) So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. Processing Society officers know what we think. If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. Thanks, [-Rick Lyons-]
Lyons needs your advice regarding the IEEE
Started by ●January 6, 2012
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
<snip>> > So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. > Processing Society officers know what we think. > If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. > > Thanks, > [-Rick Lyons-]I don't have any good suggestions. If you want to see a couple (long) threads on general IEEE membership see the links below. http://bit.ly/AF5f9i (reddit) http://linkd.in/x8gVCX (linkedin) A very common comment, is that folks are frustrated how IEEEXplore is managed. As a member of SPS if you find a paper that your SPS membership doesn't cover, you don't have access. It appears this happens frequently. Many good SP/DSP papers are published in other ieee-transactions/ieee-journals and you would need to be a member of all these societies (which is expensive and not practical) to get access. I guess a suggestion is that with your SPS society membership you should have access to all related publications. Or at least some number of free accesses per year. Regards, Chris
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
On 6 Jan, 13:05, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> What services do you think > the IEEE should provide to guys like us?Hmmm... I am in the process of setting up a course I hope to be able to give this spring. The main message is that people needs to think, apply criticism. One of the examples I use in th electure goes something like this: 99 out of 100 ideas don't survive first-time think-through: "The solution to the low battery capacity of electric cars is simple: Use an extension cord!" While this particular example is taken from a joke I found in a Donald Duck comic, a depressingly large number of research ideas fall in this category. Of the remaing ideas, 9 out of 10 don't survive 2nd time think-through: "Public transport would be far more efficient in large cities if buses automatically got the green light in crossings." This was suggested in a large Norwegian city a few years ago. The first question is 'how do we know when a bus approaches a ligh crossing?' Possible answers include - GPS on bus + wireless comms to control system - Qfree radio tags on vehicles with sensors near road crossings (has been used in Norwegian toll roads for 20 years already) - Cameras with number plate recognition. So this idea passes first-time think-through. However, at further consideration problems pop up: - What to do when conflicts occur? - Two buses approach at the same time but from different directions? - Should buses at schedule take presedence if the other bus is late? - What if there is a bus at schedule right behind the late bus? The end result was that the idea was scrapped. My suggestion is that anything IEEE can do to prevent obviously bad projects from launching, is a good thing. Teach and tout critical thinking and evaluation. These days the problem is less about technical skills and competence at the hands of the professionals, than about critical evaluation of ideas at the (non-technical) managment levels. Rune
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:05:37 -0800, Rick Lyons wrote:> > It's because of that question that I now ask for advice from you guys > here on comp.dsp. What would you suggest to the IEEE with regard to how > they could be of more value to you? What services do you think the IEEE > should provide to guys like us?They could relax their copyright stance. Example, there are VHDL packages that were developed by the user community as part of a standardisation effort. Then the thing got published as an IEEE standard and the IEEE put their restrictive copyright conditions on it. They didn't even write any of it, FFS. Standardisation is meant to help designers, but the IEEE's actions do the opposite. Allan
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
On Jan 7, 3:06�am, Christopher Felton <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:> <snip> > > > > > So that's it. �Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. > > Processing Society officers know what we think. > > If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. > > > Thanks, > > [-Rick Lyons-] > > I don't have any good suggestions. �If you want to see a couple (long) > threads on general IEEE membership see the links below. > > http://bit.ly/AF5f9i�(reddit)http://linkd.in/x8gVCX(linkedin) > > A very common comment, is that folks are frustrated how IEEEXplore is > managed. �As a member of SPS if you find a paper that your SPS > membership doesn't cover, you don't have access. �It appears this > happens frequently. �Many good SP/DSP papers are published in other > ieee-transactions/ieee-journals and you would need to be a member of all > these societies (which is expensive and not practical) to get access. > > I guess a suggestion is that with your SPS society membership you should > have access to all related publications. �Or at least some number of > free accesses per year. > > Regards, > ChrisIEEE and the IET are a bit money grabbing. Look to the Royal society and see that after a period of time their articles from their journals are free. Many science journals do this too - say after 6 months or a year. Hardy
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:05:37 -0800, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> >Hi Guys, > First, I say Happy New Year to all of you. > >The reason for my post is because I need your >advice with regard to the IEEE engineering >society. Here's why. > >In the January 2012 issue of the IEEE's >Signal Processing Magazine, the president of >the IEEE's Signal Processing Society (SPS) >wrote an interesting editorial. He stated >that the SPS, and the IEEE in general, needs to >shift some of its focus away from the needs >of university professors and start directing >more of its attention to the needs of working >DSP engineers. > >He justified his concern by writing something >akin to, "Are not the contributions of working >DSP engineers (DSP practitioners) just as >valuable as those of us involved in scholarly >pursuits?" > >I thought, "My my, an IEEE officer who seems to >care about working DSP engineers. How refreshing." > >Last week I E-mailed the SPS president and told >him I appreciated his editorial, and then I started >ranting and raving about how I believe the IEEE has >turned their backs on day-to-day working DSP engineers. >Well, ...the SPS president replied to my E-mail and >asked me directly, "What can the SPS do to be of >more benefit to working DSP engineers?" >He said there are a number of SPS officers trying >to answer that question and they seek the opinions >of practicing DSP engineers. > >It's because of that question that I now ask for >advice from you guys here on comp.dsp. What would you >suggest to the IEEE with regard to how they could be >of more value to you? What services do you think >the IEEE should provide to guys like us? > >If you have any suggestions/comments on how the IEEE >can better serve us I'll add your suggestions to mine >and forward them to the SPS president. (I won't give the >SPS president any names, I'll just say the suggestions >came from the subscribers to the comp.dsp newsgroup.) > >So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. >Processing Society officers know what we think. >If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. > >Thanks, >[-Rick Lyons-]First, thanks for doing this. I hope it helps. The things that seem to come up the most in my experience are: 1. Reform the refereeing process for publication in Transactions/Letters/etc. For well over a decade it's been largely an academic circle-jerk. Reviewers routinely reject good papers, especially if they don't fall under a topic of current academic research. 2. Improve access to IEEE publications. This goes way past SPS, and is just an overall problem with Xplore. Right now access is generally VERY restricted by allowing only access to SPS publications as an SPS member. There are ways around that, but in general it's a broken system. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
On 1/6/2012 9:06 AM, Christopher Felton wrote:> <snip> >> >> So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. >> Processing Society officers know what we think. >> If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. >> >> Thanks, >> [-Rick Lyons-] > > I don't have any good suggestions. If you want to see a couple (long) > threads on general IEEE membership see the links below. > > http://bit.ly/AF5f9i (reddit) > http://linkd.in/x8gVCX (linkedin) > > A very common comment, is that folks are frustrated how IEEEXplore is > managed. As a member of SPS if you find a paper that your SPS membership > doesn't cover, you don't have access. It appears this happens > frequently. Many good SP/DSP papers are published in other > ieee-transactions/ieee-journals and you would need to be a member of all > these societies (which is expensive and not practical) to get access. > > I guess a suggestion is that with your SPS society membership you should > have access to all related publications. Or at least some number of free > accesses per year.Journal articles ought to become free after a prescribed period. Certainly for IEEE members, and probably for the public as well. (The period needn't be the same for both.) Many papers are cross disciplinary. A new approach to image processing for a medical application would be an example. Whether it published in SigProc or Medical Electronics, it ought to be available to practitioners in both fields from the outset. Surely, journal editors can assess the applicability of papers they publish. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
> >Hi Guys, > First, I say Happy New Year to all of you. > >The reason for my post is because I need your >advice with regard to the IEEE engineering >society. Here's why. > >In the January 2012 issue of the IEEE's >Signal Processing Magazine, the president of >the IEEE's Signal Processing Society (SPS) >wrote an interesting editorial. He stated >that the SPS, and the IEEE in general, needs to >shift some of its focus away from the needs >of university professors and start directing >more of its attention to the needs of working >DSP engineers. > >He justified his concern by writing something >akin to, "Are not the contributions of working >DSP engineers (DSP practitioners) just as >valuable as those of us involved in scholarly >pursuits?" > >I thought, "My my, an IEEE officer who seems to >care about working DSP engineers. How refreshing." > >Last week I E-mailed the SPS president and told >him I appreciated his editorial, and then I started >ranting and raving about how I believe the IEEE has >turned their backs on day-to-day working DSP engineers. >Well, ...the SPS president replied to my E-mail and >asked me directly, "What can the SPS do to be of >more benefit to working DSP engineers?" >He said there are a number of SPS officers trying >to answer that question and they seek the opinions >of practicing DSP engineers. > >It's because of that question that I now ask for >advice from you guys here on comp.dsp. What would you >suggest to the IEEE with regard to how they could be >of more value to you? What services do you think >the IEEE should provide to guys like us? > >If you have any suggestions/comments on how the IEEE >can better serve us I'll add your suggestions to mine >and forward them to the SPS president. (I won't give the >SPS president any names, I'll just say the suggestions >came from the subscribers to the comp.dsp newsgroup.) > >So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. >Processing Society officers know what we think. >If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. > >Thanks, >[-Rick Lyons-]>So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. >Processing Society officers know what we think. >If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post.In my opinion...IEEE articles are in general too 'Mathy' to the practicing engineer. Academia likes to dazzle you with theses elaborate proofs and concise mathematical notation all on the first page... funny looking integrals and caret symbols. Articles should get to the point of why the practicing engineer should care and push the elaborate proof to more of an appendix. Consider Information Theory...Now look how Shannon wrote his papers... ok, you can read that. Practicing engineer or academic. Then consider how Hartley and predecessors wrote theirs...alot more elegant for the academic..a little tougher to follow for the 'guy in the lab'.
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
>> >>Hi Guys, >> First, I say Happy New Year to all of you. >> >>The reason for my post is because I need your >>advice with regard to the IEEE engineering >>society. Here's why. >> >>In the January 2012 issue of the IEEE's >>Signal Processing Magazine, the president of >>the IEEE's Signal Processing Society (SPS) >>wrote an interesting editorial. He stated >>that the SPS, and the IEEE in general, needs to >>shift some of its focus away from the needs >>of university professors and start directing >>more of its attention to the needs of working >>DSP engineers. >> >>He justified his concern by writing something >>akin to, "Are not the contributions of working >>DSP engineers (DSP practitioners) just as >>valuable as those of us involved in scholarly >>pursuits?" >> >>I thought, "My my, an IEEE officer who seems to >>care about working DSP engineers. How refreshing." >> >>Last week I E-mailed the SPS president and told >>him I appreciated his editorial, and then I started >>ranting and raving about how I believe the IEEE has >>turned their backs on day-to-day working DSP engineers. >>Well, ...the SPS president replied to my E-mail and >>asked me directly, "What can the SPS do to be of >>more benefit to working DSP engineers?" >>He said there are a number of SPS officers trying >>to answer that question and they seek the opinions >>of practicing DSP engineers. >> >>It's because of that question that I now ask for >>advice from you guys here on comp.dsp. What would you >>suggest to the IEEE with regard to how they could be >>of more value to you? What services do you think >>the IEEE should provide to guys like us? >> >>If you have any suggestions/comments on how the IEEE >>can better serve us I'll add your suggestions to mine >>and forward them to the SPS president. (I won't give the >>SPS president any names, I'll just say the suggestions >>came from the subscribers to the comp.dsp newsgroup.) >> >>So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. >>Processing Society officers know what we think. >>If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. >> >>Thanks, >>[-Rick Lyons-] > > >>So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. >>Processing Society officers know what we think. >>If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post. > > >In my opinion...IEEE articles are in general too 'Mathy' to thepracticing>engineer. Academia likes to dazzle you with theses elaborate proofs and >concise mathematical notation all on the first page... funny looking >integrals and caret symbols. > >Articles should get to the point of why the practicing engineer shouldcare>and push the elaborate proof to more of an appendix. > >Consider Information Theory...Now look how Shannon wrote his papers...ok,>you can read that. Practicing engineer or academic. Then consider how >Hartley and predecessors wrote theirs...alot more elegant for the >academic..a little tougher to follow for the 'guy in the lab'. > > >And Rick you could be perfect spokesman for this... Your DSP book gets 5 stars from whomever reads it. IEEE articles need more of a style that isn't painful to the engineer that hasn't taken a linear algebra or calculus course in the last 10 years. These practicing engineers aren't less intelligent than the academic,.. its that their knowledge base has to do with more experience and intuition about previous projects they worked on than mathematics. They can still get the math but you have to say words that make them relate. Think of all the engineers out there that deal with Kalman Filters... now ask your self how many of those engineers want to prove a Ricatti equation. Walk around the cubicles... not the offices, the cubicles and see the text books (if any) that the practicing engineers (who are still in cubicles) have on their desks. They are more cookbooks and references.. the proofs are gone. Its sad to say but true. Gotta ease back on the math.
Reply by ●January 6, 20122012-01-06
Christopher Felton wrote:><snip> >> >> So that's it. Here's our chance to let the IEEE Sig. >> Processing Society officers know what we think. >> If you have any suggestions, please reply to this post.<snip>> A very common comment, is that folks are frustrated how IEEEXplore is > managed. As a member of SPS if you find a paper that your SPS > membership doesn't cover, you don't have access. It appears this > happens frequently. Many good SP/DSP papers are published in other > ieee-transactions/ieee-journals and you would need to be a member of all > these societies (which is expensive and not practical) to get access. > > I guess a suggestion is that with your SPS society membership you should > have access to all related publications. Or at least some number of > free accesses per year.IEEEXplore access is clearly a very important issue. Compared to other professional organizations, that I belong to, IEEE is by far the most expensive with the least bang for the buck. Somehow it seems like IEEE is controlled by business types vs other organizations which still seem to be populated with engineer types. Notwithstanding the current request, The only entity I deal with that clearly thinks less of what I think about them is Bank of America. It's hard to come up with concrete suggestions but I would find it less annoying if when I browsed to a document that I don't have access to then simply indicate that immediately rather than waiting to check my access in a second step; the current process feels like a marketing bait and switch type of tactic and MAGNIFIES the frustration of poor access. It feels like they know I don't like the access policy and they are taunting (yes I am paranoid). Of course I'm talking about searches where I'm already logged in so the single stage vetting is possible. To be clear the problem is access, the solution is improved access, better vetting only addresses mitigating dissatisfaction. As for membership it seems like cost is targeted to a reasonably common situation where an institution is picking up the membership cost. That model doesn't seem to include much room for retired or semi-retired members who would have much to offer; knowledge, experience, volunteer time but have little to justify the current cost/benefit. The viable communities seem to be students and institutional members, independent and retired seem to be an unmarketable = unimportant demographic to the current leadership. My sole interesting quality, from the IEEE point of view, appears to be that I'm alive and eligible for group insurance. I feel much more like a customer than a neighbor. My concerns are IEEE and not SPS specific. If the SPS were to separate from IEEE I would follow. I don't mean to advocate succession, I wish to see changes focused elsewhere.
