[sigcomm] ccr comments

Sun Nov 5 21:12:16 PST 2006

I liked Christophe's idea of having an editorial section at CCR,
and this is why we wrote two such articles already
(even though both articles could be also published, I am sure,
at peer-reviewed conferences).

This is how I see these "technical editorials":
suppose that you read a well-cited peer-reviewed published
paper X saying that, for example, all cows are either white or black.
You think about it, you do your experiments, and you reach
the conclusion that cows can also be brown! What do you do then?
You can write one of those big technical papers, 10 or 14 pages
long, send it to a conference, and announce your results about
brown cows to the community after 6-9 months or more. Another way
is to write a short and very focused editorial in the form of a
response, basically, to the previously published paper X,
giving your argument/objection with their result. Something
like a public review, if you like, which is also supported
by results though. I think that our publication process needs such
published objections/debates/arguments. They can make the process
much more healthy and transparent. Today, most objections to published
work are either only discussed informally or behind closed doors.

In summary, CCR technical editorials are clearly not peer-reviewed
contributions. They are technical responses to previous published work.
And because they are not peer-reviewed, it is their author(s) that
carries the complete responsibility of their content. Not CCR.

Now, the open issue with all this is what should the CCR editor
do if he receives an editorial that claims, for example, that
some cows are green? Or what if he receives 100 editorial submissions
for each issue? I do not have a good answer to these questions.
Some form of quality control is clearly necessary. But again,
I think it is beneficial to have a space in our publication process
in which members of the community can publish their arguments and
objections to published work in a transparent and technical manner.

Constantine

--------------------------------------------------------------
Constantine Dovrolis | 218 GCATT | 404-385-4205
Assistant Professor | Networking and Telecommunications Group
College of Computing | Georgia Institute of Technology
dovrolis at cc.gatech.edu
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Constantinos.Dovrolis/

Christophe Diot wrote:
> 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 :-)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sigcomm mailing list
> sigcomm at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm