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

I would definitely encourage a more *open* review process along these lines.

[I know there is always the fear of retribution for a critical review, but
if done tactfully, openly, and honestly, one would hope that *tactful*
truthfulness would win in the end :)]

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mukul Goyal
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:17 AM
Cc: tccc
Subject: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems?
(Henning Schulzrinne)

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