Hi, Pars, On 11/3/2011 9:11 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote: > Hi Joe thanks. I think I cannot argue with your experience of course > which I don' have. > > But why the following system is not useful to me? > > 1. I can browse others' work (e.g. arxiv) > 2. I can ask questions, provide comments, get answers etc. > 3. My input is archived. > 4. I get comments to my work. If I don't there is a problem with my work > and I update it or see similar work. > > Using this system, if I provide good feedback, I can form a network for > myself without necessarily attending conferences.
It's useful, as are the local equivalents (e.g., tech reports at your own organization, if you have one). However... Consider where you look to find good work that you *know* has been publicly vetted by peers that you recognize and respect. Consider where you send a paper to *know* you will get a set of reviews (granted in a few months, hopefully). Consider where you send a paper to *know* that, if the paper is deemed useful by a set of peers, you can have a venue where you *know* at least some other people will see your work? Which one yields these results - arxiv, Infocom, or ToN? That's why, IMO, organized peer-reviewed venues are used as part of tenure and promotions, but tech report publications aren't anywhere as significant. Joe (again, speaking as an individual) _______________________________________________ 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
