[rfc-i] Overview document available
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Nov 6 20:39:44 PDT 2010
On 2010-11-07 16:27, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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
>>>>> 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
>> for conferences and journals. And the ISE does sometimes request more
>> 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:
> 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.
More information about the rfc-interest