[Tccc] Jackson Network and Queueing Theory

Berta Carballido Berta.Carballido
Thu Nov 10 07:10:15 EST 2011


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




More information about the TCCC mailing list