[Tccc] [InternetTC] ComS...

Joe Touch touchatisi.edu
Wed May 29 14:09:31 EDT 2013



 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
 




More information about the Tccc mailing list