[Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: Promoting open on-line research)
Vida Rolland
vida
Thu Nov 3 09:51:04 EDT 2011
IMO, the IETF model cannot be extended to general paper reviewing. In the
IETF there is a very limited number of internet drafts that are discussed by
the community, as opposed to the tons of papers that are written each year
by an increasing number of students and researchers from all over the world.
What works for 100 drafts/year would not work for 100.000 papers/year, as
simple as that.
Also, in the IETF there is an incentive for people to polish a draft as much
as possible, as there is a common interest to arrive to an RFC, and a
correct one, as soon as possible. But it still takes several years for a
draft to become an RFC, so it's not at all faster than a traditional journal
publication. What would be the incentive in the case of scientific papers?
Some papers would surely generate a nice on line discussion, but that would
be probably the case for only 1% of the papers, and that is an optimistic
forecast. What about the other 99% of the papers?
If you want just to get fast feedback for your work, there are several ways
to do it:
- send it to your colleagues first;
- send it to people you work with in some national or international
projects;
- send it to people you consider experts in the area, people whose work is
referenced in your paper;
- send it to Special Issues of some journals, they are much faster in
reviewing;
- post it publicly in an archive, if you wish. But why obliging everyone to
use this latter solution?
Cheers,
Rolland Vida
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tccc-bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:tccc-
> bounces at lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Pars Mutaf
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 12:50 PM
> To: Sakib Pathan
> Cc: touch at isi.edu; tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re: Promoting
open
> on-line research)
>
> Addition to my last e-mail:
>
> What changes would you require in the petition to sign it?
>
> Pars
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Sakib Pathan
> <sakib.pathan at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Asking question is the way of clarifying doubt. All created things
> >> following the laws of space and time must be flawed. Hence, both
> >> current and the proposed systems will have flaws. While some of the
> >> points mentioned here (
> >> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/replacing-scientific-conferences-
> >> with-a-cheap-and-effic.html) seem to be reasonable, I see some critical
> problems. May be I am again asking the same questions others already have
put
> forward.
> >>
> >> 1. Though the idea of "on-line archive" seems to be attractive, such
> >> centralization in digital world could draw numerous numbers of
> >> submissions to a single archive that could be again left for long time
without
> reviews!
> >> How many "on-line archives" should be there?
> >>
> >> 2. If Step 3: "When the community and authors decide that the article
> >> is ready for publication, the authors submit it to a journal using
> >> the current system. The article is published with their names." is
> >> followed, the same problem of taking long time exists. What is meant
> >> by 'community'? How many people/scientists?
> >>
> >> 3. Previously it was noted that a scientific conference does not only
> >> provide a forum for scientific researchers, but also many things
> >> could be learnt from direct human-to-human communications that you
> >> might not find in your own surroundings or in the digital world.
> >> Sitting in from of the monitor does not give the idea how much a work
> >> could scale to a different infrastructure and settings.
> >>
> >> 4. While blocking conference travel might save money, reduce carbon
> >> emission, and provide other facilities, the learning from a different
> >> setting or environment will be less or none, which will hamper the
> >> actual scientific progress that could be applied overall for the
mankind.
> >>
> >> *The better idea could be: *
> >>
> >> 1. Keep the conferences as they are now (online or physical). People
> >> may or may not attend, local or international (based on capability).
> >>
> >> 2. Submit your works to the archive systems. If people are
> >> interested, they will automatically read those. It would be rather
> >> better to make some system that announces arrival of such-and-such
> >> paper in the digital archive. We should have choice of topics so that
> >> papers are notified to us using some filtering system. Then, I will
> >> have choice to read it or not, comment it or not.
> >>
> >> 3. Naturally go for journals for publication.
> >>
> >>
> > Yes this my opinion too.. We just need to augment archive systems with
> > online discussion.
> >
> > Personally, if I see a paper in which I am interested I give feedback
> > without waiting anything in return. This comes naturally from the need
> > to talk about the topic. Because I like the topic.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pars
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Sakib
> >> http://staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Emmanuel Lochin
> >>> <emmanuel.lochin at gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On 3 November 2011 09:45, Pars Mutaf <pars.mutaf at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > Hi Usman,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > The method you are suggesting means that we need to wait 6
> >>> > > months for feedback (3-5 reviews).
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi Pars,
> >>> >
> >>> > Why do you think it would be faster with your proposal?
> >>> > I saw that you requested a review for one of your paper, but how
> >>> > long you expect to get real reviews? I mean, not from your
> >>> > friends, colleagues or collaborators.
> >>> > Who is going to stand whether the reviewer is skilled or not?
> >>> > If the reviewer is not anonymous, who would risk to send a review
> >>> > that might be qualified as bad by the author or another person?
> >>> >
> >>> > I think you should clearly expose the rules of your system, I
> >>> > really do not understand how does it work.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Hi Emmanuel,
> >>>
> >>> Normally you should come with answer not questions (it is not only
> >>> my idea).
> >>> I mean: Question the current system not the new one to come.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/replacing-scientific-conferences
> >>> -with-a-cheap-and-effic.html
> >>> Pars
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards,
> >>> >
> >>> > Emmanuel
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > > Pars
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Usman Ashraf <
> >>> > m_usman_ashraf at hotmail.com>wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> Dear All,
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Is there a point that I'm missing? why don't we just submit our
> >>> work to
> >>> > a
> >>> > >> reputed journal for feedback?
> >>> > >> Most reputed journals don't charge anything, don't cost as much
> >>> > >> as conferences and provide us with a decent feedback.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> regards
> >>> > >> Usman.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:43:11 +0200
> >>> > >> > From: pars.mutaf at gmail.com
> >>> > >> > To: touch at isi.edu
> >>> > >> > CC: tccc at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> >>> > >> > Subject: [Tccc] Requesting open feedback to my work (Re:
> >>> > >> > Promoting
> >>> > open
> >>> > >> on-line research)
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Hi all,
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Could you please send feedback for the following work. I
> >>> > >> > don't
> >>> want to
> >>> > >> > submit it to conferences just for feedback. I would therefore
> >>> > >> > need
> >>> > your
> >>> > >> > opinion:
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5115
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Or, please point me to me to a list working on this kind of
topic.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > Pars
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > PS: Based on the below idea, this is a test for open research.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu>
wrote:
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > On 11/1/2011 11:37 PM, Pars Mutaf wrote:
> >>> > >> > > ...
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > Conferences may have the benefits that are listed above.
> >>> > >> > > The
> >>> > problem is
> >>> > >> > >> being tied to conferences just for receiving feedback.
> >>> > >> > >>
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > It's useful to appreciate that it has always been possible
> >>> > >> > > to
> >>> write
> >>> > >> drafts
> >>> > >> > > and tech reports and post them - either via direct email,
> >>> > >> > > or to
> >>> > lists*
> >>> > >> for
> >>> > >> > > discussion or feedback.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > *This list in particular is intended for exactly this kind
> >>> > >> > > of
> >>> > >> discussion;
> >>> > >> > > we are often overrun with CFPs, but they is NOT the primary
> >>> > motivation
> >>> > >> for
> >>> > >> > > this list.*
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > Joe (TCCC Chair)
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > *it's more useful to post only the abstract, not the full
> >>> > >> > > text
> >>> or
> >>> > PDF
> >>> > >> FWIW.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > *there are many IEEE Comsoc TCs; it's always useful to post
> >>> > >> > > your
> >>> > ideas
> >>> > >> to
> >>> > >> > > the TC most specific to your work.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > >> > 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
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > "This email and any attachments are confidential. They may contain
> >>> legally
> >>> > privileged information or copyright material. You should not read,
> >>> copy,
> >>> > use
> >>> > or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
> >>> > recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then
> >>> > delete
> >>> both
> >>> > messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer
> >>> > virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access
> >>> > or
> >>> unauthorised
> >>> > amendment. This notice should not be removed"
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Al-Sakib Khan Pathan, Ph.D.
> >> Assistant Professor & FYP Coordinator Department of Computer Science
> >> Kulliyyah (Faculty) of Information and Communication Technology
> >> International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)
> >>
> >> Jalan Gombak, 53100, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
> >> Tel: +603-61964000 Ext. 5653, Cell: +60163910754
> >> E-Mails: spathan at ieee.org, sakib at iium.edu.my
> >>
> >> URLs:
> >> http://staff.iium.edu.my/sakib/
> >> https://sites.google.com/site/spathansite/
> >>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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