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

>Furthermore, I would caution taking the issue of open, non confidential
review proceedings lightly.

The suggestion/proposal was made just to provoke a discussion. I really dont have any thing left to say.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chatschik Bisdikian" <bisdik@us.ibm.com>
To: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 11:20:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

While I do not speak for IEEE, I can attest to the fact that IEEE takes
plagiarism very seriously (even self-plagiarism). One only needs to report
an incident to IEEE and IEEE initiates a plagiarism investigation. I am
personally aware of situations where authors have been banned from
publishing at IEEE publications for periods of time because of plagiarism.

Furthermore, I would caution taking the issue of open, non confidential
review proceedings lightly. The "IEEE Publication Services and Products
Board Operations Manual" (
http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/publications/PSPB/opsmanual.pdf
) specifically states:

-----
...Information contained in a manuscript under review is confidential and
shall not be shared with others, nor shall reviewers use non-public
information contained in a manuscript to advance their own research or
financial interests...
-----

Aside from ethics issues, the above statement has significant IP
(intellectual property, not the protocol) implications related to the
patentability of ideas contained in a paper under review.

Regards,
Chatschik Bisdikian

From:
Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To:
Saikat Ray <raysaikat@gmail.com>
Cc:
tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Date:
08/14/2010 10:46 PM
Subject:
Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning
Schulzrinne)
Sent by:
tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu

>You are not protecting the authors' idea from getting plagiarized.

Such protection probably does not exist in the current system either (?).
This is an ethics issue. I am not aware how IEEE deals with complaints
about plagiarism. IEEE must evolve a system to deal with such complaints
if there is none today.

> For the papers that are rejected, it is a MUST that no one can copy the
>idea - otherwise no one will ever send a paper to that venue. This i
>the reason an unpublished paper is reviewed by a small number of
>people who agree not to use the idea of a paper that s/he reviews.

I think the proposed model will force a change in mindset. Under the
proposed model, submission to a conference/journal will place a paper in
the public domain, which is not so under the current model. Plain stealing
of ideas would not be possible since the act of submission gives a paper a
timestamp that can be used in plagiarism complaints. Other papers can
refer to a submitted/rejected paper as a "work in progress", much like how
an IETF internet draft is referenced.

A desirable side effect of putting all submitted papers in public domain
would be that people will hesitate before submitting a half-baked paper.

Thanks
Mukul

> 1. The review process starts with the posting of the submitted paper on
a public "wall" for a certain time window.
> 2. Any one can post their review of the paper on the "wall" before a
certain deadline.
> 3. The paper has a TPC mentor that has power to accept/reject the paper.
> 4. TPC mentor assigns a certain number of official reviewers for the
paper. However, their reviews do not necessarily carry more weight than
those by voluntary reviewers.
> 5. The authors and reviewers communicate with each other, possibly using
pseudonyms, on the "wall" during the time window for the review process.
However, the authors are not allowed to submit a new version of the paper
during the review process.
> 6. At the conclusion of the time window, the TPC mentor makes the
accept/reject decision about the paper based on posted reviews and
author/reviewer communication.
>
> Thanks
> Mukul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L Wood" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
> To: mukul@uwm.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:58:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
> Before advocating the IETF process, I suggest looking at the IRTF and
seeing how the IETF process fails in research.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu [
mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mukul Goyal
> Sent: 14 August 2010 20:36
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: tccc
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
> Henning
>
>>>
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>

--
Saikat Ray
Web: http://raysaikat.googlepages.com

_______________________________________________
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