Hello all, I could not read all responses to this thread, maybe somebody already mentioned something like this...
Why not do a service where: 1. You can upload your paper and wait for reviews 2. Reviewers subscribe to review your paper (so once you see that a paper is already being reviewed you look for another if you want) 3. The person gets reviewed as well as the work (i.e. the researcher can give a mark to the reviewer on his/her responses and the researcher gets reviewed on his/her uploaded material - so people will try to upload mature material to avoid too bad reviews). 4. Maybe even you can request specifically a review from a good reviewer by paying a fee for his/her service. Similar systems already exist for somehow similar purposes (professionals such as lawyers answering questions http://www.justanswer.com) Regards -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lachlan Andrew Sent: 10 November 2011 11:44 To: Pars Mutaf Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Tccc] Jackson Network and Queueing Theory On 10 November 2011 21:48, Pars Mutaf <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Lachlan Andrew <[email protected]> > wrote: >> As an aside, this is a good example of the benefit of peer review over >> the "open review" that is being discussed on another thread. It is >> more efficient to have three reviewers point out this flaw (if it is >> one) than have all readers of the TCCC list spend time reading the >> technical report. > > I guess I have to reply: > > I don't understand. The author got a feedback without waiting 3-6 > months. Why peer review is better? Why compare the two when you > can have both? Ture, the authors got fast feedback. However, the system is less efficient. Notice that, in my rush to save others from reading a clearly flawed paper, I mis-identified the flaw, which further increases the noise. In a proper review process, I would have waited until I was certain (since there wouldn't be hundreds of other people possibly reading the same paper) and clearly pointed out what the problem is. The authors got fast feedback in this case because they used the "high priority" QoS class (send to everyone instead of three people). If everyone uses the high priority class, then nobody gets good service. If you want to "crowd source" reviewing, take a look at www.scholarpedia.org. Cheers, Lachlan -- Lachlan Andrew Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA) Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia <http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew> Ph +61 3 9214 4837 _______________________________________________ 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
