I agree that researchers giving a mark (or reputation) to reviewers may be useful.
Cheers, Pars On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Berta Carballido <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
