I guess "Lasting Impact" awards are a much better metric than "Best Paper" awards. There is evidence that best paper awards are not actually indicative of a pap

I guess "Lasting Impact" awards are a much better metric than "Best Paper" awards. There is evidence that best paper awards are not actually indicative of a paper's future impact (if defined as the number of citations): Judging quality remains a difficult task for the initial reviewers, but also for the best paper award committee. Despite its honest efforts, the best paper award committee has not selected papers that are cited more often than other papers. In other words, the best paper award committee did not perform better than random chance. From this viewpoint, Desney Tan’s claim that “The Best of CHI awards represent the top one percent of research submissions to CHI” appears too optimistic. http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2009/scientometricAnalysisOfTheCHI/index.html http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2009/scientometricAnalys... My own rant on this topic: http://raphaelwimmer.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/best-paper-demo-poster-awards-considered-harmful/ http://raphaelwimmer.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/best-paper-dem...