I agree that scaling would be an issue if using mailing lists. However, we are in 2010 and social networking is all the rage... So how about this (I know it looks complicated, but please bear with me for a moment):
Perhaps IEEE could augment its site with the possibility to create private social networks (I think that there are several companies providing software or hosted services for such functionality). Each conference would instantiate such a new network every year. The members of the TPC will be added to this network (no more admin than adding them to a mailing list). Every author that submits a paper could by automatically invited to join the private network via a link sent by the paper submission system in the email confirming the submission. Every paper would also be added by the system as an entity to this social network, and the authors are automatically added as "friends" to the paper. Once assigned to the paper, the reviewers are also added as "friends". A search engine could help reviewers in identifying interesting submissions in case only one mentor is assigned by default for each paper. All the dialogue between the reviewers and the authors could take place on the "wall" of the paper in the private social network. In case people would like to have double blind reviews, this could be ensured by assigning IDs that are unique to this private social network (by making some alias that masks the IEEE login of the person). Of course, if more openness is desired it could be achieved by relaxing the constraints at the platform level.
All of the basic technology for this exists. There is a non-negligible amount of integration and packaging work that would probably need resources at an IEEE level rather than just Comsoc. But maybe it would pay up... Smaller conferences might even consider trying this on their own by using a private social network provider and adding users and papers manually.
my 2 cents
-- Catalin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:tccc-
> bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Henning Schulzrinne
> Sent: den 13 augusti 2010 07:02
> To: Mukul Goyal
> Cc: tccc
> Subject: 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
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment