Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

> That's quite a lot longer than the gap between the CFP and the submission.
> Granted, many people know when cyclical CFPs are coming out, but the
> presumption is that it takes 2-3x longer to process reviews than to
> write the paper. That seems a bit upside down to me.

Well, expert reviewers are always tardy and need lots of time to submit
their (often, awfully short and uninformed) reviews. Given that they're
not being paid to do reviewing, and receive little reward for it,
the least that can be done is provide time so that they can review
when convenient for them and their schedules. Really, we're lucky that
reviewers review at all.

(I do sometimes think we need some sort of meta-review assessing reviewer
reputation, in terms of quality/accuracy/responsiveness of the reviewer.
If you spend a lot of time working on a paper, it is reasonable to expect
a reasonably detailed review in return. But then good reviewers will be
tasked more and just turn into bad reviewers...)

> Right now the bar at <10% meetings is "can I find a reason to reject it".
> That's not a conference paper criteria, IMO.

Indeed. It's a criteri_on_.

L.

hypercriticalityRus

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc