[Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: Promoting open on-line research)
j.agbinya@ib2com.org
j.agbinya
Thu Nov 3 06:44:36 EDT 2011
Further more, you could never be sure of the expertise of the
reviewers and how suited they are to review the paper.
Just because 100 people review one paper and say that it is a good
paper does not mean it is a good paper to be published in a journal or
conference. I for one will not accept a paper reviewed online to be
published in a journal to which I am the editor until the paper is
reviewed by nominated experts on the topic. If the experts be it two
or three on the topic reject the paper, I will still ignore the
opinions of the 100 online reviewers are may or may not be remotely
knowledgable on the topic.
Rapid reviews do lead to paper mills and pulp. In an age where you
often discover some unethical authors submit identical copies of the
same paper to different review outlets with same title and also with
changed title, rapid reviews would work to the advantage of pulp paper
production outlets.
Good reviews take time because of the tasks involved in reviewing
someone's claim to new ideas.
johnson
Quoting Luigi Iannone <luigi at net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>:
>
> On Nov 3, 2011, at 10:46 , Pars Mutaf wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>> I think you should clearly expose the rules of your system, I really
>>> do not understand how does it work.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Emmanuel,
>>
>> Normally you should come with answer not questions (it is not only my
>> idea).
>> I mean: Question the current system not the new one to come.
>>
>
> Pars,
>
> Why should we trust your system without questioning it?
> If that is what you want why you are opening the discussion on this
> mailing list?
>
> Let me take advantage of this mail to raise another point (please
> correct me if I misunderstood your model).
>
> You stated several times that conferences take too long to provide feedback.
>
> How much time do you think will take in your open system for a paper
> to have sufficient review feedback so that it can become a
> meaningful publication?
>
> I mean, the fact that you post online a paper does not make the
> paper automatically correct, interesting, or actually providing a
> real contribution. So I wouldn't consider it a real publication that
> can be referenced until either I review it myself (but I cannot
> review all the papers I cite in my publications) or I wait that
> someone else does the review.
>
> And what are the incentives to review in your model? Why should I
> actually spend time on your paper?
>
> In conferences and journals there an organizational infrastructure
> that guarantees me that as I do review for others people articles
> other people will review my paper. In your open system it may
> happens that I spend time reviewing papers and nobody will ever have
> a look at my papers.
>
> ciao
>
> Luigi
>
>
>
>> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/replacing-scientific-conferences-with-a-cheap-and-effic.html
>> Pars
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Emmanuel
>>>
>>>
>>>> Pars
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Usman Ashraf <
>>> m_usman_ashraf at hotmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a point that I'm missing? why don't we just submit our work to
>>> a
>>>>> reputed journal for feedback?
>>>>> Most reputed journals don't charge anything, don't cost as much as
>>>>> conferences and provide us with a decent feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards
>>>>> Usman.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:43:11 +0200
>>>>>> From: pars.mutaf at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: touch at isi.edu
>>>>>> CC: tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>>>>> Subject: [Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: Promoting
>>> open
>>>>> on-line research)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you please send feedback for the following work. I don't want to
>>>>>> submit it to conferences just for feedback. I would therefore need
>>> your
>>>>>> opinion:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5115
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, please point me to me to a list working on this kind of topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pars
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: Based on the below idea, this is a test for open research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/1/2011 11:37 PM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conferences may have the benefits that are listed above. The
>>> problem is
>>>>>>>> being tied to conferences just for receiving feedback.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's useful to appreciate that it has always been possible to write
>>>>> drafts
>>>>>>> and tech reports and post them - either via direct email, or to
>>> lists*
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> discussion or feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This list in particular is intended for exactly this kind of
>>>>> discussion;
>>>>>>> we are often overrun with CFPs, but they is NOT the primary
>>> motivation
>>>>> for
>>>>>>> this list.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe (TCCC Chair)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *it's more useful to post only the abstract, not the full text or
>>> PDF
>>>>> FWIW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *there are many IEEE Comsoc TCs; it's always useful to post your
>>> ideas
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the TC most specific to your work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
>>>>>> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
>>>>>> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>>>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
>>>> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
>>>> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "This email and any attachments are confidential. They may contain legally
>>> privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>>> use
>>> or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>>> recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>>> messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>>> data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>>> amendment. This notice should not be removed"
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
>> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
>> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications
> (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication.
> Tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
More information about the TCCC
mailing list