Talk:Journal of the ACM

importance?

This article is 4 years old and is still in this sad shape. Is this notable enough to be an article? Or should it be deleted?

I hate to see anyone's effort go to waste but there may not have been much effort put into this.

User F203 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the best general-purpose journal in computer science. It certainly is notable enough to be an article. More effort would not go amiss. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why discussion is good. I talked with someone and have now changed my mind. This is not some obscure, worthless journal. It is over 50 years old and has overseen the period where computer science has transformed society. This article just needs a little work, that's all. User F203 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Leading professional ...???

I'm doubted.

Look at the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Journal+of+the+ACM&btnG=Search

and

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=IEEE+Transactions+on+Computers&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

plus http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+validation&as_publication=Computers+%26+Chemical+Engineering&btnG=Search --222.67.216.110 (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Try searching for articles in ACM instead, and you will find results. "Communications of the ACM" is another alternative. The magazine was generally called only ACM, but the subtitle seems to have changed over time. And it is without doubt the most prestigious magazine about computer algorithms in the world. Its notability is very solid. The reason why this article is so short is that those who read ACM do not think Wikipedia has reached enough notability to write in it.There was a period during the height of the cold war when Soviet algorithm specialists were not allowed to publish articles in ACM, or read it, because the magazine was considered a matter of strategic importance. This period ended after a few years because the Soviet readers read it anyway and their competence was needed to keep the standard of ACM as the most advanced magazine about computer algorithms. See the article [Association for Computing Machinery] for more about ACM and its publications and web sites. Roger491127 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The same person....???

http://research.yahoo.com/Prabhakar_Raghavan

http://jacm.acm.org/Editors.html

I cann't see the relation of the above pages between the two --222.64.17.99 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Journal of the ACM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724223232/http://jacm.acm.org/editorials/raghavan-2003-07 to http://jacm.acm.org/editorials/raghavan-2003-07

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)