[Tccc] Jackson Network and Queueing Theory

Pars Mutaf pars.mutaf
Thu Nov 10 07:42:17 EST 2011


I agree that researchers giving a mark (or reputation) to reviewers may be
useful.

Cheers,
Pars

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Berta Carballido
<Berta.Carballido at cit.ie>wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I could not read all responses to this thread, maybe somebody already
> mentioned something like this...
>
> Why not do a service where:
>
> 1. You can upload your paper and wait for reviews
> 2. Reviewers subscribe to review your paper (so once you see that a paper
> is already being reviewed you look for another if you want)
> 3. The person gets reviewed as well as the work (i.e. the researcher can
> give a mark to the reviewer on his/her responses and the researcher gets
> reviewed on his/her uploaded material - so people will try to upload mature
> material to avoid too bad reviews).
> 4. Maybe even you can request specifically a review from a good reviewer
> by paying a fee for his/her service.
>
> Similar systems already exist for somehow similar purposes (professionals
> such as lawyers answering questions http://www.justanswer.com)
>
> Regards
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tccc-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:
> tccc-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Lachlan Andrew
> Sent: 10 November 2011 11:44
> To: Pars Mutaf
> Cc: tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] Jackson Network and Queueing Theory
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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