Hi all, If you like the following idea, have similar ones, suggest modifications, helpful strategies to get it done please contact me ([email protected]).
A system providing the following: 1. I can browse others' scientific work (e.g. arxiv.org) 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. === Pars Mutaf On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Pars Mutaf <[email protected]> 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. > > Pars > > > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 11/3/2011 7:00 AM, Pars Mutaf wrote: >> ... >> >> The reviews should be publicly available to everyone. >>> >> >> There have been attempts to explore this and other models, e.g., in no >> particular order: >> >> A- author rebuttal of reviews >> B- blind reviews >> C- double-blind process >> where the paper authors are hidden during review >> D- public reviews >> where reviews are published with the paper >> E- open reviews >> where the author sees the reviewer's names >> F- adding a venue for papers on the 'borderline' of the >> main conference >> >> Speaking as someone who has participated as a PC member in these in >> various places (as an individual, not as TCCC Chair): >> >> A was tried at Infocom (and elsewhere). The goal was to avoid a paper >> being discarded because of an incorrect review. The result was a >> substantial increase in review time (actually, it ended up resulting in >> less time for reviewers to complete their reviews due to a fixed yearly >> cycle), but no substantial change in paper handling. Most of the rebuttals >> did not point out review errors, but rather disagreed with review opinion. >> >> B is currently typical. >> >> C is used at Sigcomm and more recently at ICNP. It is intended to avoid >> favoritism, but IMO it also tends to work against systems work that has >> been vetted in workshops and symposia in parts. >> >> D has been tried for some CCR papers, where a single review or summary of >> the reviews is presented. >> >> E was tried at Global Internet a number of years ago, and nearly killed >> the meeting. Submissions went down over 50%. The result was much more >> pleasantly-written reviews, but the reviews were (IMO) less useful. >> >> F was introduced at Infocom several years ago. IMO, it simply introduced >> a second borderline, and made it very difficult to distinguish between full >> accepts and "consolation prize" accepts. >> >> All of the above were introduced to address a perceived or real concern. >> None of them was tested in a true experiment (e.g., with a control group >> during the same year). Most of them (IMO) were introduced because chairs >> believe that mechanism can address review process problems. IMO, there is >> only one good solution for all such problems: >> >> PC chairs MUST review the reviews. EVERY review. EVERY year. >> Reviews whose ranks are not substantiated by >> meaningful comment must be both discarded and >> replaced. >> >> Overall, IMO, it is useful to understand that: >> >> - reviewing is an imperfect process >> >> - a paper's quality is determined by what the reader >> receives (goodput), not what is sent (offered load) ;-) >> >> - papers are rejected because of the lack of positive comments, >> not for any single negative comment >> (so arguing each negative comment in a review >> won't fix a paper - many reviewers simply provide >> sufficient negatives to justify a decision, but >> could provide other negatives if asked) >> >> - at large conferences, papers are rejected after substantial >> decision >> e.g., at Infocom, a paper is either a unanimous reject >> by three reviewers, OR is then considered by at least >> an additional 8-10 people during the PC meeting >> >> I see none of these changing in an open process. >> >> Joe >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ 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
