On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > Yes but it is too late now I couldn't contribute. My contribution is missing in the paper.
> Consider where you send a paper to *know* you will get a set of reviews > (granted in a few months, hopefully). > > Yes a better paper because people helped me. > 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? > > OK. > Which one yields these results - arxiv, Infocom, or ToN? > > First step is arxiv, second is infocom, third is ToN. Or perhaps, First step is arxiv, second step is ToN. Pars > 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
