how to evaluate achievement in CS field

Computer science and engineering is a synthetic field in which creating something new is
only part of the problem; the creation must also be shown to be
"better". though standard publication is one indicator of academic
achievement, other forms of publication, especially conference publication, and
the dissemination of artifacts also transmit ideas. conference publication is
both rigorous and prestigious. Assessing artifacts requires evaluation from
knowledgeable peers. Quantitative measures of impact are possible, but they may
not tell the implied story.

Specifically, it is possible to write a valuable, widely used piece of software inducing a
large number of downloads and not make any academically significant
contribution. Developers at IBM, Microsoft, Sun, etc. do this every day. In such cases the software is
literally new, as might be expected in a synthetic field, but it has been
created within the known state-of-the-art. It is not "better" by
embodying new ideas or techniques. It may be improved, but anyone
"schooled in the art" would achieve similar results.

allowing one's colleagues to examine and use one's creation is a more intimate may of
conveying one 's ideas than journal publishing, and is seen to be more
effective.

[ Tenure review 99 @ CRA ]