[Tccc] Jackson Network and Queueing Theory

Lachlan Andrew lachlan.andrew
Thu Nov 10 06:44:19 EST 2011


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




More information about the TCCC mailing list