>>
>> A related concern with IETF-style iterative reviewing is that the
>> reviewer may end up contributing more than some of the authors. It is
>> easy to imagine a conscientious reviewer going through many iterations
>> with a student whose (co-author) advisor is preoccupied.
>And if people are complaining about conference submission-to-publication delays of 5 months today, they will be thrilled when they
>see the 5-year delays from -00 I-D to RFC...
There is no suggestion that the review process would extend for 5 years. It would still be same as before. Just that it would be open.
>In general, without stating what you're trying to optimize and which problem you are trying to solve (quality? pick future faculty? timeliness? perception of fairness), the discussion of mechanisms seems a bit besides the point.
In my mind, the problem is fairness of the review process. Another problem, that such a model may possibly solve, is dearth of reviewers and submission of sub-quality papers.
> To once again cite the IETF process: first, you need a requirements draft.
By IETF model, I was basically referring to its open review process.
Thanks
Mukul
_______________________________________________
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