[rfc-i] Overview document available

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat Nov 6 20:27:09 PDT 2010



On 11/6/2010 8:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-11-07 16:04, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/2010 6:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-07 03:11, SM wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>     "The [RFC Editor] stream should be re-instituted to distinguish RFC
>>>> Editor-related
>>>>      policy, structure, and process documents from other RFCs."
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reason why this cannot be done through the Independent
>>>> Submissions Stream?
>>>
>>> Because independent submissions are supposed to be peer-reviewed
>>> technical submissions...
>>
>> Peer review is misleading, IMO.
>>
>> The IS review process is more of a sanity and end-run check, rather than
>> the kind of review that happens when a paper is submitted for a journal
>> or conference. The IS review process requires only one such review
>> (presumably for that reason), rather than the 2-3 typically required as
>> a minimum for most "peer review" publications.
>
> That really isn't accurate. Firstly, the reviews are not just a sanity
> check. I can testify to that as both a reviewer and as a reviewee. They are
> real reviews, performed by a peer, but not single-blinded like most reviews
> for conferences and journals. And the ISE does sometimes request more than
> one review, although it's true that is an exception.
>
> This is a lot more than a threshold check.

The fact that the reviewers have augmented their task beyond a sanity 
check is outside the scope of the current review recommendations:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/reviewer.guide.txt

The technical threshold is competence, not quality, as is typically 
implied by the phrase "peer review".

And I don't know of any other venue in which one such review is called 
"peer review". That would never fly if what we were measuring were quality.

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list