[Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsorship - r...
Henning Schulzrinne
hgsatcs.columbia.edu
Thu May 30 14:34:02 EDT 2013
Also, ranking could be seen as meaning that a TPC member ranks papers within
their review portfolio (paper #7 is best, #8 second best"). (Infocom tried
this, I believe.) I don't think that works all that well, but "ranking" may
well refer to the usual "definite accept" to "definite reject" scale or "in top
10% of papers". Given the tendency of the first ranking to concentrate around
the non-committal middle, the latter seems more helpful, but I'm not sure
that's a "best" practice.
On May 30, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Ken Calvert <calv... at netlab.uky.edu> 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?
>
> (ii) What about considering the transparency of the decision process?
> I.e., whether all (or almost all) decisions are made with in full view of the
> TPC and with the TPC's approval or at least the opportunity to object.
>
> (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. 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.
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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