On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Vida Rolland <[email protected]> wrote:
> IMO, the IETF model cannot be extended to general paper reviewing. In the > IETF there is a very limited number of internet drafts that are discussed > by > the community, as opposed to the tons of papers that are written each year > by an increasing number of students and researchers from all over the > world. > What works for 100 drafts/year would not work for 100.000 papers/year, as > simple as that. > > Also, in the IETF there is an incentive for people to polish a draft as > much > as possible, as there is a common interest to arrive to an RFC, and a > correct one, as soon as possible. But it still takes several years for a > draft to become an RFC, so it's not at all faster than a traditional > journal > publication. What would be the incentive in the case of scientific papers? > Some papers would surely generate a nice on line discussion, but that would > be probably the case for only 1% of the papers, and that is an optimistic > forecast. What about the other 99% of the papers? > > If you want just to get fast feedback for your work, there are several ways > to do it: > - send it to your colleagues first; > - send it to people you work with in some national or international > projects; > - send it to people you consider experts in the area, people whose work is > referenced in your paper; > - send it to Special Issues of some journals, they are much faster in > reviewing; > - post it publicly in an archive, if you wish. But why obliging everyone to > use this latter solution? > The reviews should be publicly available to everyone. Cheers, Pars > > Cheers, > Rolland Vida > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:tccc- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf > > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:50 PM > > To: Sakib Pathan > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: Promoting > open > > on-line research) > > > > Addition to my last e-mail: > > > > What changes would you require in the petition to sign it? > > > > Pars > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Pars Mutaf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Sakib Pathan > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > >> Asking question is the way of clarifying doubt. All created things > > >> following the laws of space and time must be flawed. Hence, both > > >> current and the proposed systems will have flaws. While some of the > > >> points mentioned here ( > > >> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/replacing-scientific-conferences- > > >> with-a-cheap-and-effic.html) seem to be reasonable, I see some > critical > > problems. May be I am again asking the same questions others already have > put > > forward. > > >> > > >> 1. Though the idea of "on-line archive" seems to be attractive, such > > >> centralization in digital world could draw numerous numbers of > > >> submissions to a single archive that could be again left for long time > without > > reviews! > > >> How many "on-line archives" should be there? > > >> > > >> 2. If Step 3: "When the community and authors decide that the article > > >> is ready for publication, the authors submit it to a journal using > > >> the current system. The article is published with their names." is > > >> followed, the same problem of taking long time exists. What is meant > > >> by 'community'? How many people/scientists? > > >> > > >> 3. Previously it was noted that a scientific conference does not only > > >> provide a forum for scientific researchers, but also many things > > >> could be learnt from direct human-to-human communications that you > > >> might not find in your own surroundings or in the digital world. > > >> Sitting in from of the monitor does not give the idea how much a work > > >> could scale to a different infrastructure and settings. > > >> > > >> 4. While blocking conference travel might save money, reduce carbon > > >> emission, and provide other facilities, the learning from a different > > >> setting or environment will be less or none, which will hamper the > > >> actual scientific progress that could be applied overall for the > mankind. > > >> > > >> *The better idea could be: * > > >> > > >> 1. Keep the conferences as they are now (online or physical). People > > >> may or may not attend, local or international (based on capability). > > >> > > >> 2. Submit your works to the archive systems. If people are > > >> interested, they will automatically read those. It would be rather > > >> better to make some system that announces arrival of such-and-such > > >> paper in the digital archive. We should have choice of topics so that > > >> papers are notified to us using some filtering system. Then, I will > > >> have choice to read it or not, comment it or not. > > >> > > >> 3. Naturally go for journals for publication. > > >> > > >> > > > Yes this my opinion too.. We just need to augment archive systems with > > > online discussion. > > > > > > Personally, if I see a paper in which I am interested I give feedback > > > without waiting anything in return. This comes naturally from the need > > > to talk about the topic. Because I like the topic. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Pars > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best Regards, > > >> Sakib > > >> http://staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/ > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Pars Mutaf <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Emmanuel Lochin > > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > On 3 November 2011 09:45, Pars Mutaf <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > Hi Usman, > > >>> > > > > >>> > > The method you are suggesting means that we need to wait 6 > > >>> > > months for feedback (3-5 reviews). > > >>> > > > >>> > Hi Pars, > > >>> > > > >>> > Why do you think it would be faster with your proposal? > > >>> > I saw that you requested a review for one of your paper, but how > > >>> > long you expect to get real reviews? I mean, not from your > > >>> > friends, colleagues or collaborators. > > >>> > Who is going to stand whether the reviewer is skilled or not? > > >>> > If the reviewer is not anonymous, who would risk to send a review > > >>> > that might be qualified as bad by the author or another person? > > >>> > > > >>> > I think you should clearly expose the rules of your system, I > > >>> > really do not understand how does it work. > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> Hi Emmanuel, > > >>> > > >>> Normally you should come with answer not questions (it is not only > > >>> my idea). > > >>> I mean: Question the current system not the new one to come. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/replacing-scientific-conferences > > >>> -with-a-cheap-and-effic.html > > >>> Pars > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > Regards, > > >>> > > > >>> > Emmanuel > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > Pars > > >>> > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Usman Ashraf < > > >>> > [email protected]>wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > >> Dear All, > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> Is there a point that I'm missing? why don't we just submit our > > >>> work to > > >>> > a > > >>> > >> reputed journal for feedback? > > >>> > >> Most reputed journals don't charge anything, don't cost as much > > >>> > >> as conferences and provide us with a decent feedback. > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> regards > > >>> > >> Usman. > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:43:11 +0200 > > >>> > >> > From: [email protected] > > >>> > >> > To: [email protected] > > >>> > >> > CC: [email protected] > > >>> > >> > Subject: [Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: > > >>> > >> > Promoting > > >>> > open > > >>> > >> on-line research) > > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > Hi all, > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > Could you please send feedback for the following work. I > > >>> > >> > don't > > >>> want to > > >>> > >> > submit it to conferences just for feedback. I would therefore > > >>> > >> > need > > >>> > your > > >>> > >> > opinion: > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5115 > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > Or, please point me to me to a list working on this kind of > topic. > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > Pars > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > PS: Based on the below idea, this is a test for open research. > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > On 11/1/2011 11:37 PM, Pars Mutaf wrote: > > >>> > >> > > ... > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > Conferences may have the benefits that are listed above. > > >>> > >> > > The > > >>> > problem is > > >>> > >> > >> being tied to conferences just for receiving feedback. > > >>> > >> > >> > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > It's useful to appreciate that it has always been possible > > >>> > >> > > to > > >>> write > > >>> > >> drafts > > >>> > >> > > and tech reports and post them - either via direct email, > > >>> > >> > > or to > > >>> > lists* > > >>> > >> for > > >>> > >> > > discussion or feedback. > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > *This list in particular is intended for exactly this kind > > >>> > >> > > of > > >>> > >> discussion; > > >>> > >> > > we are often overrun with CFPs, but they is NOT the primary > > >>> > motivation > > >>> > >> for > > >>> > >> > > this list.* > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > Joe (TCCC Chair) > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > *it's more useful to post only the abstract, not the full > > >>> > >> > > text > > >>> or > > >>> > PDF > > >>> > >> FWIW. > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > *there are many IEEE Comsoc TCs; it's always useful to post > > >>> > >> > > your > > >>> > ideas > > >>> > >> to > > >>> > >> > > the TC most specific to your work. > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > >> > IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer > > >>> Communications > > >>> > >> > (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and > communication. > > >>> > >> > [email protected] > > >>> > >> > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc > > >>> > >> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > > IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer > > >>> Communications > > >>> > > (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and > communication. > > >>> > > [email protected] > > >>> > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > -- > > >>> > "This email and any attachments are confidential. They may contain > > >>> legally > > >>> > privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, > > >>> copy, > > >>> > use > > >>> > or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended > > >>> > recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then > > >>> > delete > > >>> both > > >>> > messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer > > >>> > virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access > > >>> > or > > >>> unauthorised > > >>> > amendment. This notice should not be removed" > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer > > >>> Communications > > >>> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication. > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Al-Sakib Khan Pathan, Ph.D. > > >> Assistant Professor & FYP Coordinator Department of Computer Science > > >> Kulliyyah (Faculty) of Information and Communication Technology > > >> International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) > > >> > > >> Jalan Gombak, 53100, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA > > >> Tel: +603-61964000 Ext. 5653, Cell: +60163910754 > > >> E-Mails: [email protected], [email protected] > > >> > > >> URLs: > > >> http://staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/ > > >> https://sites.google.com/site/spathansite/ > > >> > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications > > (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication. > > [email protected] > > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc > > _______________________________________________ IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication. [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
