Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page
Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Laszlo Solymar

dblp:124/6569 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 4 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers
Computing education · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Learning and educational technologies · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Computing education › STEM education
engineering education		 0.212015
In Defense of Engineering Education [Point of View] · Proc. IEEE 2015
Computing education
STEM education		 0.112015
In Defense of Engineering Education [Point of View] · Proc. IEEE 2015
Learning and educational technologies
higher education		 0.012013
The Old Professor in Action · Proc. IEEE 2013

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

pedagogy · 0.3liberal arts education · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 The Twin Arts of Writing and Revising Technical Articles
abstract
Authors write papers; reviewers review them. The relationship between them is a kind of love–hate relationship. Reviewers are loved when they write nice things; they are hated when they niggle. But there is no way the authors could avoid the reviewers. They are an absolute necessity. Without them there would be no quality publishing. This article goes into a little more detail about the interactions between authors and reviewers.
Gabor C. Temes, Laszlo Solymar
 Proc. IEEE2
2015 In Defense of Engineering Education [Point of View]
abstract
Presents arguments for the stance that the workforce benefits from colleges and universities that offer engineering students a combination of a quality liberal arts education with the intellectual content of a science/technology/engineering/mathematics (STEM) subjects and courses.
Gabor C. Temes, Laszlo Solymar
 Proc. IEEE2
2013 The Motivation and Technique of Writing Scientific Contributions [Point of View]
abstract
The author notes that an anniversary is a good excuse to revisit the past - to compare and to contrast. The technical developments in our field have been breathtaking and truly a cause for celebration. What about the human dimension? It has always been one of his interests. Fifty years ago he authored a brief article bearing the same title as above, in this Journal (ibid., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 628-629, Apr. 1963). He felels it is now time to revisit the subject.
Laszlo Solymar
 Proc. IEEE1
2013 The Old Professor in Action
abstract
Discusses the teaching styles of older professors [age 65 years and older] and their younger counterparts in university education.
Gabor C. Temes, Laszlo Solymar
 Proc. IEEE2