[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:

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 mailing list