CEUR-WS.org is running without financial support, thanks to the kind services of SunSITE Aachen and the voluntary work by the CEUR-WS Team. We do not ask money from our users, but we would greatly appreciate if you could donate script code or web services that makes our life easier.

One such service would be to extract all author names (CEURAUTHOR tag) from an index.file and then to check per author, how many DBLP entries this author has. The result should be summarized as follows

Total number of (unique) authors: XXX

Total number of DBLP entries of all authors: YYY

Average: YYY/XXX

Technically, a Python script or a web service may be useful.

So, if you like CEUR-WS.org and want to support our work, then invest some energy and write this piece of code!

Manfred, 2017-12-12




CEUR-WS.org focusses on publishing workshop proceedings. Workshops are in many cases satellite events of major conferences. Recently, some of these workshops grow to working conferences and start to have tracks or satellite workshops whose papers are not published in the proceedings of workshop/working conference.

I have some mixed feelings about publishing the proceedings of such sub-events at CEUR-WS. The impression could be that we publish those papers that are not good enough for the main workshop. The workshops already have usually higher acceptance rates as conferences, so this is a question of quality management.

What do you think?


CEUR-WS started in April 1995 and it’s getting stronger year by year. In 2016, we published 232 new volumes. That is 9 volumes more than in the previous record year 2015! We offered the service for free and that shall continue for the future — provided that we continue toi enjoy the fabulous support of the Sun SITE Aachen team and the voluntary work of the CEUR-WS team. So, the volumes are not only open-access (for readers) but also free-to-publish (for the proceedings editors). Further, authors and editors fully retain the copyright to their work.

CEUR-WS is indexed by the Norwegian Register


at Level “1”, which translates into “good” publication channel. The highest level “2” is reserved for very good journals.

The CEUR-WS.org web site is also rising constantly in popularity. According to Alexa.com, its current rank is around 115.000 worldwide. It was around 4.120.000 in the year 2011. Not bad for such a focussed website!

In the last couple of years, CEUR-WS.org has expanded its reach to the Russian-language scientific community with several large conference proceedings. We are also very proud of the collaboration with AI*IA (Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence) to publish their workshop proceedings.

Another trend of the last years are major conferences that publish all or most of their workshop proceedings with CEUR-WS. Examples are the conferences MoDELS, ISWC, ESWC, and RecSys.

Last but not least, our thanks go to the DBLP team, who indexed CEUR-WS almost from the very beginning. Without DBLP’s support, CEUR-WS would not have risen. Thank you, Michael Ley!


Happy free publishing in 2017 and beyond!


Manfred — for the CEUR-WS Team




I am wondering how long a paper should be to be worth considered publishable. For example, a half-page abstract of an invited talk hardly has more than an explanation of the title and probably will never be cited. Such abstracts may be in the (electronic) proceedings but should not be indexed by DBLP or other services as a scientific paper.

Are there sharp criteria about the minimum length? Is it 2 pages or 5 pages? Shall any citable paper also contain references about what others have done?


Shall a 2-page paper about a demo be regarded as a citable scientific paper?

The question gets more relevant these days because CEUR-WS is now recognized by the “Norwegian Database” as a publisher with reasonable reputation. Any paper published by CEUR-WS thus counts in the Norwegian system (which is also adopted by Sweden and possibly Finland).


I rather do not want that short abstracts or very short papers count the same as a long paper.

Your opinion is welcome!




Yesterday I read about the prices that a major publisher charges to publish a paper as open-access. It is a whoppy 3000$. The authors then retain the full copyright. The publisher probably will make the paper available online on its server and take care that it is included in various bibliographies. The publisher probably also taken care of the long-term archival, which CEUR-WS.org currently cannot do.


But compare this to what we charge: 0$


Certainly, we do have costs that we do not charge such as our own work time and the costs for keeping the server online. But how can someone justify 3000$ for something that we offer for free?


What would you regard as a fair price?

The regular PDF files do not include all fonts but rather expect that the PDF Reader on the devive (PC, tablet,…) has those fonts installed locally. This could make PDF files unreadable in the future when they are viewed on devices that do not have those fonts.

PDF/A in its various incarnations promises a way out of this dilemma by including alls required font definitions in the PDF file, and restricting certain other elements such as hyperlinks. The great disadvantage is that such PDF files get really big.

My question: Shall we anyway move to PDF/A in scientific publishing? If yes: which of the variants?

Or should we rather promote a non-PDF format such as HTML5?

Opinions welcome!