Guys, This discussion has been floating around for at least 10 years! The whole community already agreed to consider those findings bogus and those guys are keeping trying to publish their work without success.
To me, this is just a waste of time for the community. And this proves both the robustness of the traditional peer-reviewing system (I mean, the REAL peer reviewing system, for quality conferences and journals) and the inutility of other mechanisms. -- Marco Mellia - Assistant Professor Dipartimento di Elettronica Politecnico di Torino Corso Duca Degli Abruzzi 24 10129 - Torino - IT Tel: +39-011-090-4173 Cel: +39-331-6714789 Skype: mgmellia Home page: http://www.tlc-networks.polito.it/mellia On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Pars Mutaf wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Lachlan Andrew > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Yes this the advantage of public discussion. If you don't notice the error > in your comment someone else can. > > >> 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 >> . >> >> > Yes this is another approach. > > Cheers, > Pars > > > >> 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
