One year ago, Vijay Vazirani proposed to add videos to conference submissions. Apparently Elsevier’s Journal of Number Theory is going to implement a similar process, except that videos will be sent only *after* the review process. (This is a crucial difference, and I favor this more conservative approach.)

### Recent Comments

### non-theory

### theory

### Archives

- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- November 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006

### a

Additive Combinatorics
Apple
average-case complexity
Avi Wigderson
Ben Green
CCA security
Cheeger inequality
Circuit complexity
circuit lower bounds
Conceptual contributions
cryptography
CS254 2010
Dan Spielman
Decision Diffie-Hellman
eigenvalues
eigenvectors
Expanders
Fields Medal
FOCS 2006
FOCS 2010
Goldreich-Levin
Graph Isomorphism
hard-core predicate
Hard-Core Sets
ICM 2006
Integrality gap
Laplacian
LaTeX
LaTeX in WordPress
Leonid Levin
linear programming
Luby-Rackoff
MAC
Max Cut
maximum flow
Metric embeddings
Moses Charikar
Motwani lecture
National Review
Natural Proofs
Notices of the AMS
Oded Goldreich
one-way function
PCP
polynomial hierarchy
Proposition 8
pseudorandom function
Pseudorandomness
pseudorandom permutation
public-key encryption
quadratic residue
Random Oracle Model
random walks
Regularity Lemma
RSA
Russell Impagliazzo
Ryan Williams
safety
SAT
signature schemes
Silvio Micali
sparsest cut
spectral graph theory
Spectral partitioning
Stephen Colbert
STOC and FOCS
Szemeredi Theorem
Tamar Ziegler
Terence Tao
things that are excellent
Tim Gowers
Turing Centennial
unique games
World Cup
Zero Knowledge

### Top Posts

- LaTeX to WordPress
- CS261 Lecture 11: Strongly Polynomial Time Algorithms
- Download
- The Expander Mixing Lemma in Irregular Graphs
- The Riemann hypothesis for graphs
- CS276 Lecture 2: Semantic Security
- Using LaTeX2WP
- Notes on expanders, sparsest cut, and spectral graph theory
- Congratulations!
- Lecture Notes

## 2 comments

Comments feed for this article

April 17, 2008 at 3:06 am

Chris CIf the goal of the proof-by-video is to aid the review process, then what point is there for submitting the video after the reviews are already complete? If one worries about the attractiveness of the author potentially impacting the reviewers’ neutrality, then why not just restrict the videos to be voice-overs (with the actual video being a couple of powerpoint slides or a demo if there is code involved). This actually makes a lot more sense than a video of a guy up in front of a whiteboard, since anything written would probably not come out very clearly in a low-resolution video. It’s probably easier to produce, too, especially for camera-shy individuals.

Overall, I think it is a good idea, and if one put the video deadline a day or two after the paper deadline I think that would allow enough time for its production.

(I have no idea if any of this is redundant with the comments on Vijay’s post… there’s 84 of them and I can’t be bothered to read all of them!)

April 17, 2008 at 9:45 pm

lucaThis is really the big difference between Vijay’s proposal and the JNT system. It would be a fairly radical move to allow videos as part of the submission as an aid to reviewers. Indeed even not having double-blind reviews remains controversial.

But having a video as an archival part of the final paper seems an unqualified good thing, for the reasons explained in the linked post. It is of course a terrible idea to have Elsevier own the copyright to the videos. It would be great if, instead, the arxiv added a functionality to upload a video (and Cornell pledged to maintain the videos in perpetuity.) Having the videos on youtube wouldn’t work in the long run, because nobody knows if Google will be around 100 years from now.

Indeed a great thing that Google could do with some of its money is to endow an independent foundation with the goal of preserving in perpetuity useful public-domain material. Then it would be fine if the videos were maintained by such a foundation.