[Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: Promoting open on-line research)

Pars Mutaf pars.mutaf
Thu Nov 3 07:50:18 EDT 2011


Addition to my last e-mail:

What changes would you require in the petition to sign it?

Pars

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Sakib Pathan <sakib.pathan at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Asking question is the way of clarifying doubt. All created things
>> following the laws of space and time must be flawed. Hence, both current
>> and the proposed systems will have flaws. While some of the points
>> mentioned here (
>> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/replacing-scientific-conferences-with-a-cheap-and-effic.html) seem to be reasonable, I see some critical problems. May be I am again
>> asking the same questions others already have put forward.
>>
>> 1. Though the idea of ?on-line archive? seems to be attractive, such
>> centralization in digital world could draw numerous numbers of submissions
>> to a single archive that could be again left for long time without reviews!
>> How many ?on-line archives? should be there?
>>
>> 2. If Step 3: ?When the community and authors decide that the article is
>> ready for publication, the authors submit it to a journal using the current
>> system. The article is published with their names.? is followed, the same
>> problem of taking long time exists. What is meant by ?community?? How many
>> people/scientists?
>>
>> 3. Previously it was noted that a scientific conference does not only
>> provide a forum for scientific researchers, but also many things could be
>> learnt from direct human-to-human communications that you might not find in
>> your own surroundings or in the digital world. Sitting in from of the
>> monitor does not give the idea how much a work could scale to a different
>> infrastructure and settings.
>>
>> 4. While blocking conference travel might save money, reduce carbon
>> emission, and provide other facilities, the learning from a different
>> setting or environment will be less or none, which will hamper the actual
>> scientific progress that could be applied overall for the mankind.
>>
>> *The better idea could be: *
>>
>> 1. Keep the conferences as they are now (online or physical). People may
>> or may not attend, local or international (based on capability).
>>
>> 2. Submit your works to the archive systems. If people are interested,
>> they will automatically read those. It would be rather better to make some
>> system that announces arrival of such-and-such paper in the digital
>> archive. We should have choice of topics so that papers are notified to us
>> using some filtering system. Then, I will have choice to read it or not,
>> comment it or not.
>>
>> 3. Naturally go for journals for publication.
>>
>>
> Yes this my opinion too.. We just need to augment archive systems with
> online discussion.
>
> Personally, if I see a paper in which I am interested I give feedback
> without waiting anything in return. This comes naturally from the need to
> talk about the topic. Because I like the topic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pars
>
>
>
>
>> Best Regards,
>> Sakib
>> http://staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Emmanuel Lochin
>>> <emmanuel.lochin at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 3 November 2011 09:45, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > Hi Usman,
>>> > >
>>> > > The method you are suggesting means that we need to wait 6 months for
>>> > > feedback (3-5 reviews).
>>> >
>>> > Hi Pars,
>>> >
>>> > Why do you think it would be faster with your proposal?
>>> > I saw that you requested a review for one of your paper, but how long
>>> > you expect to get real reviews? I mean, not from your friends,
>>> > colleagues or collaborators.
>>> > Who is going to stand whether the reviewer is skilled or not?
>>> > If the reviewer is not anonymous, who would risk to send a review that
>>> > might be qualified as bad by the author or another person?
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Al-Sakib Khan Pathan, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor & FYP Coordinator
>> Department of Computer Science
>> Kulliyyah (Faculty) of Information and Communication Technology
>> International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)
>>
>> Jalan Gombak, 53100, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
>> Tel:  +603-61964000 Ext. 5653, Cell: +60163910754
>> E-Mails: spathan at ieee.org, sakib at iium.edu.my
>>
>> URLs:
>> http://staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/
>> https://sites.google.com/site/spathansite/
>>
>>
>



More information about the TCCC mailing list