[rfc-i] Overview document available

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Nov 8 09:21:37 PST 2010

On 11/6/2010 8:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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
>>>>>> 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.
> We disagree.

About what part?

- that reviewer.guide.txt uses the term "competence" only?

- that reviewers exceed their charter?

- that "peer review" implies quality, not just competence?

- that "peer review" implies multiple reviews, not just one?

Or do you seriously think that Individual submissions are now 
peer-reviewed in the same sense as any other common venue (IEEE, ACM, 
IFIP, etc.)?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list