[Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsorship - ratin...

Joe Touch touchatisi.edu
Thu May 30 16:20:44 EDT 2013



 Hi, Ken,

On 5/30/2013 8:40 AM, Ken Calvert wrote:
> Hi Joe -
>
> Good idea, thanks for doing this.  I think your proposal is pretty much on 
> target.  Just a couple of thoughts on #6:
>
>> 6. paper review process            E/A/D
>>
>>      E = considers average rank AND outlier info, discussion points
>>          also based on natural 'gap' in evaluation
>>      A = considers average rank based on natural gap in evaluation
>>      D = considers rank only
>
> (i) I interpret these criteria as referring to the accept/reject
> decision process, rather than the "paper review process". Perhaps the
> title should be "acceptance decision process" or something like that?  

Will do.

> (ii) What about considering the transparency of the decision process?
> I.e., whether all (or almost all) decisions are made with in full
> viewof the TPC and with the TPC's approval or at least the opportunity to
 > object.

Good point.

> (iii) Can you please clarify what you mean by "natural gap in
> evaluation"? I would probably interpret this to mean that the
> accept/reject line is drawn, as far as possible, so that there is a
> clear gap between the (average ratings of) the accepted papers and the
> rejected papers.

That's what I meant.

> But I don't think that's realistic - especially in
> large/general conferences, where there are papers from many areas, there
> will be not be a bright line in the ratings/rankings between rejected
> and accepted papers. This also seems to conflict with "considers rank
> only" being Deficient. So maybe I've just not understood what this means.

The idea is that the number of papers accepted is driven by some visible 
difference in the set of papers, rather than arbitrarily differentiating 
papers based on very similar scores.

Joe

>
> Cheers,
>
> KC
>
> On 29 May 2013, at 14:05 PM, Joe Touch <to... at isi.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> As part of the ComSoc technical cosponsorship (TCS) process, TCs are
>> supposed to nominate at least two members of the TPC who will monitor
>> the review process.
>>
>> However, there doesn't appear to be any guidelines for providing
>> feedback on that process.
>>
>> I've drafted the following, which I hope will open a discussion on this
>> issue. If it evolves into something useful, perhaps it can be posted on
>> the TC websites for use by those appointed to monitor TC-endorsed TCS'd
>> meetings.
>>
>> NB: I've cross-posted this to TCCC, ITC, and TCHSN, which are where I
>> participate primarily; if any other TC has suggestions, please take the
>> discussion to the TCCC list if possible.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Rating system:
>>       EXCELLENT    best-practice to be aspired to
>>       AVERAGE      acceptable practice
>>       DEFICIENT    cause for concern for ComSoc involvement
>>
>> 1. TPC participation invitation        E/A/D
>>
>>      E = before first Call for Papers (CFP) issued
>>      A = before CFP submissions due
>>      D = after CFP submissions due
>>
>> 2. involvement in CFP promotion        E/A/D
>>
>>      E = invited to forward CFP and submit
>>      A = invited to submit
>>      D = neither
>>
>> 3. paper assignment for review        E/A/D
>>
>>      E = invited to select papers based on expertise and
>>          abstracts/titles
>>      A = invited to select based on topic area
>>      D = not invited to select
>>
>>      NB: "everyone reviews all" = E
>>
>> 4. paper review format            E/A/D
>>
>>      E = includes rank, feedback for author, and private
>>          feedback for TPC discussion
>>      A = includes rank and author feedback
>>      D = includes only rank
>>
>> 5. TPC meeting                E/A/D
>>
>>      E = in-person meeting with support for remote
>>      A = in-person with no remote support or only telecon or e-mail
>>      D = no meeting
>>
>> 6. paper review process            E/A/D
>>
>>      E = considers average rank AND outlier info, discussion points
>>          also based on natural 'gap' in evaluation
>>      A = considers average rank based on natural gap in evaluation
>>      D = considers rank only
>>
>> 7. paper reviews returned        E/A/D
>>
>>      E = >=3 substantive reviews returned with rank and
>>          comments for the authors
>>      A = >=3 substantive reviews returned with rank and
>>          at least a rationale for rejects
>>      D = <3 reviews for some papers, reviews not returned at all,
>>          or only rank provided
>>
>> 7. paper accept rate            E/A/D
>>
>>      E = <=50%, based on natural gap in paper evaluation
>>      A = <=50%, not based on 'gap'
>>      D = >50%
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> Ken Calvert
> Professor and Chair, Computer Science Department
> Acting Director, Vis Center
> University of Kentucky
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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