[e2e] double bland reviewing

Jonathan M. Smith jms at central.cis.upenn.edu
Wed Apr 28 18:10:28 PDT 2004


Ooops - which was that all reviews be public and signed, as in published
book reviews. Goals: public reviews would be more polished and "cheap
shots" and "logrolling" would be obvious. And history would see who
was right....

								-JMS


On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Jonathan M. Smith wrote:

>
> I still think the reviewing process would benefit from the suggestion I
> made at SIGCOMM in the OO session......! :-)
> 								-JMS
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>
> > so certain conferences have a tradition of double blind
> > submission/review process to minimse the effect of
> > "oh its by so and so so it must be {brilliant|rubbish}"
> >
> > some people have been known to post TRs to this (and similar lists)
> > just before the submission date to achieve certain effecs
> > i) familiarity amongst possible subset of reviewer pool
> > ii) feedback about paper to improve it before submitting....
> >
> > these are not necessarily bad things, except for the
> > iii) "brand recognition effect"
> >
> > how about we setup a parallel list to e2e, which is closed
> > member-only submission, but anonimyzed.
> >
> > so then people could "safely" post drafts to get community feedback
> > without breaching etiquette
> >
> > I have here (affecting a Tom Lehrer voice/accent) a modest example I
> > prepared earier of just such a possible submission - this is, of
> > course, not by me, but by my evil twin at Some Other Cambridge
> > University Computer Laboratory
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Self Similarity in the Arrival Process of
> > Network Systems Architectures considered Harmful
> >
> > ....for possible FDNA paper...continuing a long tradition of
> > spurious research destinated for the journal of irreproduceable
> > results (formally known as ACM CCR),
> >
> > the past has always been the best predictor of the future (at least
> > until last tuesday fortnight when i was knocked off a bike for the
> > first time in 47 years of riding around in various taxi-ridden
> > cities).
> >
> > SO for FDNA, it is clear that we need to trawl the Past Directions
> > in Network Architectures - as was discussed recently, we need to
> > think about complexity -
> >
> > how has network architecture complexity varied over the years - lets
> > draw a graph, as that will help us get the paper up to 8 pages
> >
> > complexity
> > ^
> > |
> > |   2     4       6       8 ?
> > |  ..     . .     . .     ?
> > | .  . 3 .   . 5 .   . 7 .
> > |.    . .     . .     . .
> >  _______________________>time
> >
> > Notice that the y axis complexity measured as the exponent, on a log
> > scale, so the peaks of the curve are np complete, the mid points are
> > quadratic, and the troughs are linear complexity - the x axis for
> > time is measured roughly in decades....and is of course a
> > cabbalistic plot
> >
> > so the points i've annotated are an excercise for the reader
> > but let me give some Three Letter Acronyms for you to play with
> > ATM
> > GSM
> > HBN(hilltop beacon network)
> > MCT (morse code telegraph)
> > ASN (Ad-hoc sensor networks)
> > IP4
> > X25
> > POTs
> >
> > and we can see that it is a pretty clear match...
> >
> > so what is 8? well this is somethign ew should avoid - this argues
> > that there is No Future in FDNA for 10 years - we should skip
> > immediately ahead 20 years where at least we can get back to
> > networks that are quadratic (or adriatic) in complexity, or even 30
> > years where they will be O(C), for some constant C
> >
> > A colleague pointed out we need to worry about C - some examples are ATM
> > where C is basically the entire output of the world economy for a
> > decade in terms of trees and paper for the ATM B-ISDN specifications
> > - this is linear complexity in architecture, but of course of no
> > practical value at all....
> >
> > next?
> >
> > jon
> >
>


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list