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

Open review is indeed being considered (there was a related experiment a few years ago in this community), but scaling of your kind of mechanism is a problem. Major networking/communications conferences like ICC, Globecom and Infocom attract between 1000 and 2000 submissions, each. This exceeds the I-D submission rate even in the week before the -00 deadline by a good margin. To put this in context: the major journal in our field, TON, publishes O(100) papers each year.

Henning

On Aug 13, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:

> Although I am not familiar with the complete context of this discussion, it seems that this discussion is about how to review and select papers for a conference. Here are some thoughts:
>
> How about following the IETF model and use an open review process, where all communication takes place over a mailing list. Each submitted paper is assigned a TPC mentor. A submitted paper may be reviewed by any one. All reviews are posted on the list. The authors respond to the reviews on the list. So, there is extensive communication between the authors and the reviewers on the list. The mentor is responsible for completing the review process for the paper. The review process is open to every one to participate, observe and object (if a paper is being treated unfairly).
>
> Thanks
> Mukul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sue Moon" <sbmoon@kaist.edu>
> To: "grenville armitage" <garmitage@swin.edu.au>, tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 7:41:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
>> On 13/08/2010 6:14 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> [..]
>>> IMO, it's time to consider whether life would be
>>> better if we just accepted a more conventional idea of what a conference
>> is.
>
> I think this is what the thread is about,
> and I'm for switching some conferences to more journal-like
> publication practice as VLDB is now doing.
>
>> In some countries we're making ground with the argument that conferences
>> are
>> worthy outlets for systems work in networking (and some related fields).
>
> Korea is also working on updating the review system
> based on conference publications. How to evaluate and how to publish
> are two separate things though.
>
> -Sue
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>

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