On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Vida Rolland <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** ** > > Dear Pars,**** > > ** ** > > > The reviews should be publicly available to everyone. > > **** > > First, I do not see how this statement relates to any of my previous > arguments.**** > > ** > You were suggesting that people privately ask for reviews from their colleagues. In this case public can't see the reviews and take lessons. > ** > > Second, I do not agree with it. This is a matter of privacy. If you write > a bad paper, as a junior researcher, you would not like to see that the > reviews hammering you badly are made public. Also, your system does not > scale –tons of papers, with tons of public reviews, who will read them? ** > ** > > ** > If it is public they would not dare to "hammer" the student. They would be kind. Interested people browse in the archive, ask questions, send comments, etc. If we have no activity concerning our paper, we may ask ourself some questions (maybe it is not interesting let's face it) Thanks, Pars > ** > > Rolland**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Pars Mutaf [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 3:01 PM > *To:* Vida Rolland > *Cc:* Sakib Pathan; [email protected]; [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: Promoting > open on-line research)**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 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?**** > > > > Cheers, > Pars > > **** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ 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
