Supplemental material for CORE ranking application for the International Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC) 1 General (Part F.2 of General CORE Form) DISC is a conference in Theoretical Distributed Computing. Theoretical Distributed Computing is its own research area, intersecting with both general CS Theory and distributed systems, but not a subarea of either of those: There are plenty of research topics that are covered by Theoretical Distributed Computing conferences that would not be covered by STOC/FOCS/SODA and other general CS Theory conferences nor by networking/distributed systems conferences, but which are very relevant theoretical areas with direct application to current distributed systems (e.g., theoretical underpinnings of blockchain, consensus, and low-level concurrency). To further understand how theoretical distributed computing is not a direct subset of CS Theory, note that the acceptance rates of DISC are in fact lower than the acceptance rates of the top general CS Theory conferences: SODA has an average acceptance rate of 30%, FOCS of 27.6% and STOC of 26.3%, according to lamsade.dauphine.fr/ sikora/ratio/confs.php – these three conferences are all rated A* by CORE. DISC and PODC (PODC is an A*-ranked conference at CORE) are the top two conferences in theoretical dis- tributed computing conferences. The theoretical distributed computing community opted to have two smaller, single- session top flagship conferences spread throughout the year, with support both from the US and from Europe through ACM and EATCS respectively, rather than having just one flagship multiple-session conference. DISC and PODC have very similar number of submissions and acceptance rates (see Section 4) and the same set of outstandingly qualified ”top people” in theoretical distributed computing publish in both conferences regularly: In addition to the information in Sections B, C and D of the CORE application, Section 5 shows the similarity of the pattern of publications in DISC and PODC (produced through the WPP tool) for a broader set of 36 top scholars who publish in theoretical distributed computing, ranging from the younger to the more established researchers. Moreover, the top award for Theoretical Distributed Computing, the Dijkstra Prize, and the Distributed Computing Dissertation award, which awards the top PhD thesis in theoretical distributed computing in a given year, are both jointly awarded by DISC and PODC and are delivered in alternate years at each of the two conferences. DISC brings together a large number of colocated workshops that span many areas connected to theoretical dis- tributed computing. In 2019 we had as many as 8 workshops colocated with DISC, with diverse topics including e.g. biological computation, hardware design, formal methods, and programming languages, all studied from the perspec- tive of distributed systems. In 2020, even though the conference was held online, we still had 4 colocated workshops, and all of them were very popular, with 100+ registered participants; a highlight was the CELLS workshop, which brought a large number of participants also from outside the traditional computer science community. Hence DISC (as well as PODC) serve as a hub that connects many different research communities with ties to theoretical distributed computing. Lastly, we would like to note that DISC is only listed at CORE under Field of Research 4606 – Distributed Computing and Systems Software, which spans all of the more applied areas in distributed computing, networking and systems. As mentioned above DISC is a theoretical CS conference (in distributed computing) and hence we would like to ask you that it be also listed under Field of Research 4613 – Theory of Computation, reflecting the correct subarea that DISC represents, Theoretical Distributed Computing. In the following, you will find additional supporting supporting information to DISC’s application that is not directly included in the general CORE application, such as a graph with DISC and PODC’s acceptance rates for the last several years, a list of researchers who regularly publish at DISC, with their affiliations, and a report by the DISC 2018 PC chair that document and illustrates the rigorous review process that papers submitted to DISC go through. 1 2 Qualifications of Regular DISC Participants Regular participants and contributors to PODC include distinguished researchers at all career levels with high h-index. The citation numbers are from Google Scholar, unless otherwise noted. Generally, citation numbers in theory are smaller than those in systems, as the community is smaller. Here is a sampling1: Name Affiliation Selected Honors h-index Number of DISC Count of most cited papers DISC paper Marcos Aguilera VMWare 42 12 184 James Aspnes Yale Dijkstra Prize 39 11 199 Hagit Attiya Techion ACM Fellow, 44 19 103 Dijkstra Prize Tushar Deepak Uber Dijkstra Prize 34 1 232 Chandra Dave Dice Oracle 42 1 1196 Danny Dolev Hebrew University ACM Fellow, 66 6 75 Dijkstra Award Shlomi Dolev Ben-Gurion 49 13 143 University Faith Ellen University of ACM Fellow 13 Toronto Pierre Fraigniaud CNRS 50 17 143 Seth Gilbert National U. of 32 18 142 Singapore Rachid Guerraoui EPFL ACM Fellow 75 33 205 Vassos Hadzilacos University of Dijkstra Prize 26 7 102 Toronto Bernhard Haeupler CMU Sloan Research 27 10 100 Fellow Joe Halpern Cornell ACM Fellow, IEEE 89 3 Fellow, NAE2, Godel¨ Prize, ACM AAAI Allen Newell Award Maurice Herlihy Brown University ACM Fellow, NAE, 70 21 622 Dijkstra Prize twice, Godel¨ Prize Idit Keidar Technion 42 16 113 Valerie King University of ACM Fellow 31 5 Victoria Fabian Kuhn University of 41 22 143 Freiburg Leslie Lamport Microsoft Research Turing Award, 80 7 116 NAE, NAS3, ACM Fellow, IEEE John von Neumann Medal, IEEE Emanuel R. Piore Award, Dijkstra Prize (three times) Nancy Lynch MIT ACM Fellow, NAE, 75 25 240 NAS, Knuth Prize, Dijkstra Prize Dahlia Malkhi Diem Association ACM Fellow 55 17 128 Yoram Moses Technion Dijkstra Prize, 33 11 Godel¨ Prize Gopal Pandurangan University of 35 10 114 Houston 1We will leave a field blank when the respective information was not available. 2US National Academy of Engineering 3US National Academy of Science 2 Name Affiliation Selected Honors h-index Number of DISC Count of most cited papers DISC paper Andrzej Pelc University of 50 9 Quebec in Outaouais David Peleg Weizmann Institute ACM Fellow, 75 15 of Science Dijkstra Prize Michel Raynal INRIA Academia Europea 61 22 225 Christian Scheideler U. of Paderborn 40 8 74 Stefan Schmid University of 42 5 74 Vienna Michael Scott University of ACM Fellow, IEEE 59 11 301 Rochester Fellow, Dijkstra Prize Nir Shavit MIT ACM Fellow, 13 Dijkstra Prize, Godel¨ Prize Gadi Taubenfeld Interdisciplinary 22 13 97 Center Sam Toueg University of Dijkstra Prize 45 10 184 Toronto Nitin Vaidya Georgetown IEEE Fellow 72 3 University Roger Wattenhofer ETH Zurich¨ 86 10 150 Jennifer Welch Texas A& M 34 10 152 Moti Yung Google ACM Fellow, IEEE 108 4 216 Fellow, EATCS Fellow, IACR Fellow 3 Quality of Reviewing of DISC Submissions We present detailed sample materials from the review process for the 2018 DISC conference, whose PC chair was Ulrich Schmid, Technical University of Vienna, Austria. The makeup of the DISC steering committee includes the PC chairs from the previous three years, so there is good continuity of processes and expectations. 3 Details of the DISC’18 Reviewing Process Since DISC 2018 was expected to get a similar number of submissions as DISC 2017, a large PC consisting of 39 distinguished members of the community was formed in an attempt to sufficiently cover all the 17 topics specifically addressed in the call for papers. In addition, stimulated by concerns with the reviewing process used at DISC and PODC in the past1, a number of quality-enhancing measures were foreseen for DISC 2018. Besides enforcing the requirement for self-contained submissions (15 pages LIPIcs, without references) by disallowing appendices but encouraging full versions on publicly accessible archives like arxiv or HAL, which facilitates a fair comparison of submissions given the tight reviewing time constraints, the following measures were implemented: (i) To facilitate effective paper bidding, EasyChair’s ability to match the selected topics of the submissions with the selected topics of expertise of the PC members was used to generate an initial bidding proposal for every PC member that could be modified during the actual paper bidding phase. The result of the bidding phase allowed EasyChair to find an optimal paper assignment (3 reviewers per submission) in a single assignment run, in negligible time. (ii) In order not to rule out the most competent reviewers for a submission by an overly restrictive conflict of interest policy, prohibitive CoI (like supervisor or personal relations, to be declared during bidding as usual) that forbid any access to the reviewing process, and milder forms of CoI (like occasional co-authorship, to be declared in the “comments to the PC section” of the reviews) were distinguished. (iii) A reviewing process with two intermediate reviews before the final review was enforced. The first intermediate review just asked for the reviewers’ actual expertise for reviewing the assigned papers [1 week after paper assignment], the second intermediate review asked for an estimate of the overall merit figure (and optionally major strenghts and weaknesses) [3 weeks after paper assignment]. The intermediate reviews were used to assign additional PC members/reviewers to submissions that either did not have at least 2 reviewers with expertise 3 (“knowledgable”) or 4 (“expert”), or suffered from controversial merit figure estimates (a difference larger or equal to 3, from knowledgable reviewers). At the end, 50 (resp. 3) submissions ended up with 4 (resp. 5) reviewers. (iv) The full reviews were due 6 weeks after paper assignment, which allowed 3 weeks of discussion before the PC meeting.