I am didn't re-open the discussion. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Marco Mellia <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
