[Tccc] Jackson Network and Queueing Theory
Pars Mutaf
pars.mutaf
Thu Nov 10 07:04:01 EST 2011
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Lachlan Andrew <lachlan.andrew at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 10 November 2011 21:48, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Lachlan Andrew <
> lachlan.andrew at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> As an aside, this is a good example of the benefit of peer review over
> >> the "open review" that is being discussed on another thread. It is
> >> more efficient to have three reviewers point out this flaw (if it is
> >> one) than have all readers of the TCCC list spend time reading the
> >> technical report.
> >
> > I guess I have to reply:
> >
> > I don't understand. The author got a feedback without waiting 3-6
> > months. Why peer review is better? Why compare the two when you
> > can have both?
>
> Ture, the authors got fast feedback. However, the system is less
> efficient.
>
> Notice that, in my rush to save others from reading a clearly flawed
> paper, I mis-identified the flaw, which further increases the noise.
> In a proper review process, I would have waited until I was certain
> (since there wouldn't be hundreds of other people possibly reading the
> same paper) and clearly pointed out what the problem is.
>
Yes this the advantage of public discussion. If you don't notice the error
in your comment someone else can.
> The authors got fast feedback in this case because they used the "high
> priority" QoS class (send to everyone instead of three people). If
> everyone uses the high priority class, then nobody gets good service.
>
If you want to "crowd source" reviewing, take a look at www.scholarpedia.org
> .
>
>
Yes this is another approach.
Cheers,
Pars
> Cheers,
> Lachlan
>
> --
> Lachlan Andrew Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures (CAIA)
> Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
> <http://caia.swin.edu.au/cv/landrew>
> Ph +61 3 9214 4837
>
More information about the TCCC
mailing list