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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment