[Tccc] ComSoc technical cosponsorship - r...
Renato Lo Cigno
locignoatdisi.unitn.it
Thu May 30 03:09:19 EDT 2013
Dear Joe, All,
I find all points correct, with one "doubt" on
5. TPC Meeting.
I find that the best practice is a substantial on-line
discussion among the reviewers rather than a TPC Meeting
whose cost for the conference (specially small ones)
is really high.
A very good example here can be taken from P2P.
Infocom tends to be less effective, with many reviewers
not actively involved in trying to make a real
discussion.
If there has not been a preparation with discussion of
different reviews, TPC meetings often results in
huge effort without a substantial improvement of the
reviews' quality.
My 2c
Renato
On 5/29/13 8:05 PM, Joe Touch 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
>
_______________________________________________
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