Hash: SHA1
Hi, Manoj,
Thanks for your suggestions. Some observations below.
Manoj B. S. wrote:
> Joe:
>
> Good summary, Joe. I just want to put a couple more points to the TCCC
> discussion table:
>
> 1. Improving the quality of papers.
Is this something with a specific TCCC action? I've seen good discussion
on how individual chairs might try to create change, but nothing for the
Comsoc or TCCC to do as yet.
> 2. GOLD and WOMEN reservations to the TPCs and Editorial boards.
Those are usually determined by the chairs/editors and a steering
committee of individual meetings.
> 3. Division of ComSoc to handle the growth of the networking area.
> (For example, ComSoc-Wireless, ComSoc-Optical, etc)
AFAICT, that's precisely what the TAC structure is for.
> 1. Large volume of submissions:
...
> We could, however, try to scale up IEEE or ComSoc to
> handle such huge growth.
Globecom, ICC, and Infocom already do this by adding parallel tracks,
and by organizing into track focus areas or with area chairs.
> 2. Review process: This is where IEEE can contribute better for
> improving the quality of publications. The current review process need
> more scrutiny. Again, this topic came up in 2007 and subsequent
> changes in the organization of Infocom resulted in the formation of
> Infocom Miniconferences.
The miniconference was an attempt to retain some of the borderline
papers. I personally think this remains a poor use of the community's
time because it fails to accept the natural noise in the review process.
> ...That means, we need
> more reviewers and better (faster) process to ensure quality.
I could not agree more. IMO, we get reviewers by having more people
volunteer. Contact a TPC member or chair and offer to review papers in a
specific area. Do good, thorough on-time reviews and you'll end up on
the TPC (some might not call that a reward ;-).
...
> My point is that we need radical changes in the review process. Some
> ideas are the following:
>
> (i) Group reviews: This can be considered where a collection of
> papers will be reviewed by a collection of people and discuss among
> them before recommending a set of papers.
Infocom does this already in the group discussions that occur at the TPC
meeting. Globecom and ICC effectively do this within each track as a
group. It's a good model for injecting hierarchy into an otherwise flat
process.
> (ii) Assigning a Spectrum of reviewers: Every paper must be reviewed
> by a spectrum, interms of experience, of people that includes a senior
> professor level individual, an associate/assistant professor level
> individual, a Post doc/Recent graduate level individual, and probably
> a current student.
I agree - this is good advice to TPC chairs, esp. for general meetings.
IMO, a paper should be relevant to a non-specialist, and a review from
one is the only way to find that out. However, it also results in a LOT
of complaints when a paper is rejected because of a non-expert's view
(speaking from experience of Infocom 2006).
> (iii) Increasing the number of reviews per paper: To help quality of
> papers, we can increase the number of reviewers per paper instead of
> the current average that stands between 2 and 3 reviews per paper.
The TCCC requirement for endorsed meetings is 3 per paper minimum - not
average. The exception is only for papers that are clearly out of scope
or fail for non-technical reasons (length, format).
> My
> estimate is that the large set of potential reviewers out there are
> never invited to review any papers, either as part of TPCs or as part
> of editorial boards.
As I noted above, please volunteer (this goes out to everyone). I
appreciate that it can be hard to get onto a TPC - it was hard for me as
well, which is why I suggest the method above (it worked for me).
...
> We clearly need a larger review force for the next decade of
> networking research. In order to solve this problem, let me suggest a
> 20:20 solution. We MUST have atleast 20% of GOLD or Half-GOLD
> (Graduates of the Last Half Decade) members in every ComSoc TPC and
> every Journal editorial board and collectively there should be at least
> 20% (or if not possible even 10%) women representation.
This is an interesting suggestion for TPC chairs. However, I'm concerned
about having the TCCC or Comsoc require this - esp. because these are
only two relevant criteria. Others include:
- resource-constrained vs. not
- US vs. EU vs. others
- commercial vs. education vs. other
It's very difficult to determine what the appropriate metrics are, and
I'm not sure they'd be appropriate across all TCCC-endorsed meetings.
I do think that discussing this on the list is useful, though.
...
> 3) Scaling up ComSoc:...should we need ComSoc-Wireless, ComSoc-Optical, ComSoc-P2P, or
AFAICT, we already have this in the TAC structure. There is a process
therein to start new groups as well, FWIW.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkshoBMACgkQE5f5cImnZrt9gACaApp6DxJQxXreeUdQjxll70Za
4pQAoP1TDVWgmu+FDD77XacRcyQEBr+S
=z3Ua
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment