[sigcomm] ccr comments

[Christophe Diot]

Mark Allman wrote:
>  
> I have a couple of CCR thoughts, based on that last few CCRs and
> triggered by the editor's message in the October issue.  Well, and
> Christophe said he wanted comments ...

yes please. thanks Mark for the comments. and sorry for the delay. I'll 
try to give short answers as this message might become long and boring :)

> (1) Reviewed Articles vs. Editorial Zone

let me try to answer to all these points. first remember editorials are 
experiemental. even the name "editorial" is experimental. its meaning is 
clear in french but not that obvious in english. if you find a better 
name, I'm game! We have three different types of editorials: (1) 
community news, vision, reports, etc., (2) technical report with early 
ideas seeking for comments, (3) position papers. (1) and (3) are clearly 
in. You have more concern with (2), as I have too. On one hand, it is 
not clear that these papers should be in this section as they are 
technical papers; on the other, they motivate discussion (the best 
example is the buffer serie -- but there will be 2 more example in the 
next issue).

Now, i dont receive many spontaneous editorials. most are received after 
solicitation from the editorial board or sigcomm exec committee 
(therefore, they are submitted as editorials). I think I have rejected 
two based on feedback from the area editors (maybe 3). I'm surprised you 
know one of them. the criteria for technical paper is that they are 
globally right, have at least an idea of interest and could motivate 
some feedback. again, remember some issues are really tricky to put 
together for lack of material ! and I'm sorry you find them sub-par. i 
hope this opinion is not shared by all readers (I know authors of these 
notes receive feedback and like this opportunity).

let me take an example: that's more than a year that i try to get a GENI 
article but i couldnt get one yet, despite some people promise me one 
for every issue. So, when i get too close from the deadline, I need to 
find replacement stuff :-(

The size of editorials is flexible. I make a point to limit to 4 pages 
the size of technical paper to make sure that there is a difference with 
peer reviewed papers. Some have been longer. again, it depends on 
multiple factors and when i receive a paper the day of the deadline and 
it is 2 pages longer, there is nothing I can do.

	- I think mentioning in each editorial that the document
	has not been peer reviewed is a very good idea and i'm
	gonna implement that in the next issue.

	- another point to be discussed: do we need a separate
	section for short technical papers?

	- last, please voice if you think we should stop the short
	technical papers in CCR

I think I have answered all question raised in your message. please tell 
me if i forgot one.

> (2) Not Many Papers

It is true that one of the most important constraint in CCR is the short 
turn around in reviewing process and most of the time authors of 
accepted papers have two weeks to send their final papers (Not in august 
though for various reasons). But based on the feedback I receive, that's 
also why people like CCR. The main reason for the number of papers 
accepted in each issue is the poor quality of the paper we receive. 
Sorry, do not ask me to elaborate. We (try to) publish ALL decently 
written paper with some innovation. In case the paper needs more than 2 
weeks of revision, we generally propose the authors to take a month and 
resubmit to the following issue (which ends delaying the paper 
publication by 3 months).

I hope that answers your questions. I do not want to increase the 
duration of the cycle. If the next CCR editor wants to do it, he is 
welcome to :) not clear it will improve the situation.

Separate comment about CCR online: CCR Online exists thanks to Moritz 
steiner and Ernst Biersack. it is a volunteer work and is even more 
experimental than everything else. Moritz is continuously updating CCR 
Online based on feedback received from users. He is about to make 
changes to create new categories, clarify the definition of an 
editorial, make it easier to submit, etc. We need continuous feedback on 
that. We also need feedback on the submission policy. Currently, we dont 
moderate CCR online but ask submitters to register in order to minimize 
the amount of junk. Again, maybe not optimal, but clearly experimental :)

and to conclude, I share your concern for trees. I could find many 
articles that do not deserve the paper they are printed on. Proceedings 
are big tree killers (in particular when you get them twice) and I hope 
CCR will become fully online at some point.

christophe

disclaimer: nothing here is intended to hurt or insult anyone. If you 
have a doubt, send me a note. That might simply be a cultural or 
frenglish issue :-)