hoonzang's CFPs

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T16:49:00.001-07:00

Henning,

>A number of conferences have had rebuttals for years; the general experience is that they greatly increase the work for the >authors (and the reviewers), but rarely change the result, among other problems. Based on this experience, some conferences have >abandoned them.

I am not sure why the authors would complain about the opportunity for rebuttal. They can simply not use the facility if they are happy with the reviews. I can see how it increases the TPC's and possibly reviewer's workload (if the reviewer is expected to respond to the rebuttal). It is sad if the conferences are abandoning the opportunity for rebuttal.

>I agree that better opportunities for volunteers would be useful. The Transactions on Networking is in the process of setting up >a system for volunteering, so that there's a database of reviewer candidates for editors to draw on, as one more source.

This is certainly a positive development. I hope the system, when in place, will be well advertized.

Regards
Mukul

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T16:35:00.001-07:00

Joe,

>This particular experiment was indeed written up, except for the part
>about the number of papers submitted, which dropped by 50% and took
>*years* to recover. This happened in period when no other workshop or
>conference reported a similar effect, i.e., it wasn't just 'economic
>downturn'.

Just wanted to point out that the drop in the number of submissions is not necessarily a negative result. In some sense, this is a positive result if an average submitted paper was of better quality (?) than before.

Thanks
Mukul

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] an invitation to discuss conference operation at CCW

2010-08-16T14:33:00.001-07:00

Hi, all,

Given the interest in this topic, it might be useful to discuss this in
a broader forum. I'm co-chairing TCCC's CCW 2010 this Oct, and we would
welcome a panel on this topic.

If any of you are interested in participating, contact me directly (NOT
ON THE LIST).

Joe
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T14:31:00.000-07:00

Hi, all,

On 8/16/2010 11:48 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>> But the authors would be able to rebut bad reviews. The ability of
>> refute bad reviews is a major advantage of the proposed system. The TPC
>> mentor can ultimately judge the worth of a review.
>
> A number of conferences have had rebuttals for years; the general
> experience is that they greatly increase the work for the authors (and
> the reviewers), but rarely change the result, among other problems.
> Based on this experience, some conferences have abandoned them.

(again, speaking as an individual)

FWIW, I addressed this in detail back on 8/4/10 on this list.

I'll add that
- "most" conferences that have abandoned them, AFAICT
- they add not only work, but time lag (increasing the review cycle)
- the rebuttals were abandoned for many reasons, but AFAICT mostly
because the vast majority of papers simply aren't even eligible for a
rebuttal
a paper would need to have been rejected for a key single
technical reason that is factually incorrect

E.g., "the reader didn't understand me", or "I can fix all the minor
negative points noted" do not qualify as rebuttable reasons for a reject.

Very few papers are rejected for a single technical reason; the reviews
give reasons to reject, but, as noted below, it is the lack of positive
reviews, rather than the specifics of the negative ones, that are more
frequently the cause.

Further, as noted below, chairs already have the ability to overturn
decisions where such errors occur and are pointed out.

Joe

-----

This keeps being raised in various contexts, but it's a red herring IMO.

Most negative reviews are negative because they don't say something
positive, not because of the flaws listed.

However, authors largely use rebuttals to argue the merit or logic of
the listed flaws.

A truly erroneous decision can always be overturned - in a conference or
in a journal. But the error needs to be the one entire core of the
review, i.e., "this paper was published before" when it wasn't, or "this
equation is wrong so the paper is wrong" when it isn't.

It would be more useful as a community to expect chairs and editors to
treat this as the exception that it is, and override process where truly
needed. Treating this as a (missing) part of the process is a waste of
everyone's time, and a red herring to the broader difference between
conferences and journals, IMO.

----
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T14:26:00.000-07:00

I'd like to add my 2c. We tried to run CSET workshop for one year and enable
authors to rate reviewers (blinding the reviewer's name). Even though we
publicized this and even noted it in reject/accept notifications no reviews
were put in. This year we had an option for reviewers to rate each other
reviews - again no takers.

Jelena

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On 8/16/2010 11:48 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> ...
> >> That is really an assumption that needs to be tested.
> >
> > The best thing to do is to run a conference and try it. Non-blind
> > reviewing, for example, was tried (for Global Internet) and the results
> > of the experiment were published. They were not definitive, but
> interesting.
>
> Speaking now as a member of the steering committee of GI, I'll suggest
> this:
>
> - if you think you have a better way to ru(i)n a conference, please
> do so with one *you* develop and offer to shepherd for many years
>
> This particular experiment was indeed written up, except for the part
> about the number of papers submitted, which dropped by 50% and took
> *years* to recover. This happened in period when no other workshop or
> conference reported a similar effect, i.e., it wasn't just 'economic
> downturn'.
>
> Conferences are more than just 'this year'; they are multi-year events
> that take many years to build a reputation. Playing around with how the
> conference is run has consequences - not just for the year of the
> experiment, but many years after.
>
> My experience is that virtually every "experiment" in how to run a
> conference consists of a mechanism intended to address a problem that
> either doesn't exist, the mechanism doesn't solve, or isn't useful to
> solve.
>
> For open reviews, it was "reviewers are mean". The result was that most
> authors felt that the reviews were 'nicer'. Not that they were more
> informative, more useful, or provided more detail - perhaps even less so
> on any of these metrics (that wasn't measured, BTW).
>
> For other mechanisms, the main point appears to be dealing with some
> sort of impropriety by relieving the chair of their responsibility of
> checking *every* received review (in some places, TPC tiers; in others,
> double-blind was used to address this issue).
>
> Overall, if you want to play with these mechanisms, yes, sure. But at
> least try to run it as a real experiment (with a control group the same
> year run the conventional way), and report *all* the results.
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T14:20:00.000-07:00

On 8/16/2010 11:48 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
...
>> That is really an assumption that needs to be tested.
>
> The best thing to do is to run a conference and try it. Non-blind
> reviewing, for example, was tried (for Global Internet) and the results
> of the experiment were published. They were not definitive, but interesting.

Speaking now as a member of the steering committee of GI, I'll suggest this:

- if you think you have a better way to ru(i)n a conference, please
do so with one *you* develop and offer to shepherd for many years

This particular experiment was indeed written up, except for the part
about the number of papers submitted, which dropped by 50% and took
*years* to recover. This happened in period when no other workshop or
conference reported a similar effect, i.e., it wasn't just 'economic
downturn'.

Conferences are more than just 'this year'; they are multi-year events
that take many years to build a reputation. Playing around with how the
conference is run has consequences - not just for the year of the
experiment, but many years after.

My experience is that virtually every "experiment" in how to run a
conference consists of a mechanism intended to address a problem that
either doesn't exist, the mechanism doesn't solve, or isn't useful to solve.

For open reviews, it was "reviewers are mean". The result was that most
authors felt that the reviews were 'nicer'. Not that they were more
informative, more useful, or provided more detail - perhaps even less so
on any of these metrics (that wasn't measured, BTW).

For other mechanisms, the main point appears to be dealing with some
sort of impropriety by relieving the chair of their responsibility of
checking *every* received review (in some places, TPC tiers; in others,
double-blind was used to address this issue).

Overall, if you want to play with these mechanisms, yes, sure. But at
least try to run it as a real experiment (with a control group the same
year run the conventional way), and report *all* the results.

Joe
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] CFP: Special Issue on Sensor Network for Building and Environmental Monitoring: Theory and Application

2010-08-16T13:40:00.001-07:00

CALL FOR PAPERS - 2010
EJSE - Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering
Special Issue on Sensor Network for Building and Environmental Monitoring:
Theory and Application
http://www.ejse.org

EJSE invites contributions on the above subject to the second issue of an
ongoing series of special issues in building and environmental monitoring
using sensor networks.
Monitoring and automatic control of building environment is a crucial
application of Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN). The investigation of
efficient sensor network design that minimizes energy dissipation in a
battery of the sensor node with limited battery power is a vital
consideration for sensor network lifetime. Therefore careful scheduling of
battery power in sensor networks has become a critical issue in network
design. Recent technological developments have permitted miniaturization and
power efficiency of sensors, and integration of data into applications for
building monitoring and computer interaction. Sensor networks illustrate an
exceptional improvement over traditional sensors. However, there are still
many challenges to be met before we see more widespread use of WSN in
building and environmental monitoring applications.
The objective of this special issue is to present recent advances made in
the area of sensor networks for
monitoring building and environment. Authors are specially invited to submit
contributions including (but not restricted to), the following topics:

* Practical experience and knowledge gained with real life deployment of
sensor networks
* Sensor network test-bed design and development
* Novel techniques for actual sensor deployment, data gathering
* Effects on activity monitoring, reliable communication, quality of service
and security
* Power efficient communication: miniaturization, system integration and
energy scavenging
FOR
* Building monitoring (eg: temperature, humidity, light intensity, CO and
CO2 level)
* Natural disaster monitoring/prediction (eg: earthquake, flooding,
landslip, cyclones and bushfire)
* Water quality and water level monitoring
* Biomedical sensor monitoring (eg: cardiac and wellbeing monitoring).

Guest Editor:
Dr. Malka N. Halgamuge
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of Melbourne, Australia
malka.nisha@unimelb.edu.au

Series Editor:
Editor-in-Chief, EJSE
Prof Priyan Mendis
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of Melbourne, Australia
pamendis@unimelb.edu.au

Submission Details:
Papers Deadline: 30th August, 2010
Acceptance Notification: 30th September 2010
Final Manuscript Due: 30th October 2010
Publication Date: December 2010

Submitted papers should be of high quality and not have been previously
published nor be currently under
consideration for publication elsewhere. All manuscripts should be directly
send to malka.nisha@unimelb.edu.au.
Please read the author guidelines, which are located at http://www.ejse.org.
For further
questions or inquiries, please contact Dr. Malka N. Halgamuge
(malka.nisha@unimelb.edu.au)

Best Regards
Malka
======================================
Dr. Malka N. Halgamuge
Melbourne School of Engineering
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010 Australia.
Phone: +61 3 8344 4750
Email: malka.nisha@unimelb.edu.au
Home Page: http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/malkah/
======================================

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T11:48:00.001-07:00

On Aug 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Mukul Goyal wrote:

> Hi Marco,
>
>> May be somehow out of topic, but I don't see the equation more
>> review(er)s => more fair selection process.
>
>> My understanding is that more review(er)s => more noise, more variance,
>> larger grey area, more random selection.
>
> But the authors would be able to rebut bad reviews. The ability of refute bad reviews is a major advantage of the proposed system. The TPC mentor can ultimately judge the worth of a review.

A number of conferences have had rebuttals for years; the general experience is that they greatly increase the work for the authors (and the reviewers), but rarely change the result, among other problems. Based on this experience, some conferences have abandoned them.

>
>> Add to this that the review(er)s are now "auto-assigned" (by reviewers
>> that voluntarily review a paper). The noise can only increase:
>> non-experts attracted by a paper will only provide modest and light
>> reviews at best.
>
> These non-expert reviews will only get as much weight as they deserve. On the other hand, any expert, high quality voluntary reviews can significantly improve the overall review process. I think it is overly pessimistic to assume that voluntary reviews would be bad quality. They could be bad quality. They could be very good quality as well.

We already have lead TPCs, e.g., in Infocom. In general, I think it would be helpful in this discussion if the participants were to inform themselves about the spectrum of conference review techniques that are in use. Speaking from EDAS experience, the creativity of conference chairs in inventing new twists on the basic review model is astounding - but the variation in outcome seems rather modest (and, unfortunately, the attempts at measurements rather than speculation, few).

>
>> Yes this happens also now, but all the claiming and paper assignment
>> phases should guarantee a good match between expertize and fairness etc.
>
> In my view, there are many people (including myself) who have suffered from bad, unfair reviews over the years and feel helpless against the system. The existing system does not meet the fairness expectations of many people.

As long as there are people involved and as long as the number of papers to review is large, this seems hard to avoid. I think we *can* do a better job of evaluating reviewers, so that the lazy, incompetent, unhelpful and hostile reviewers are removed from the pool. But I suspect all of us have reviewed papers and missed the point or have been wrong, in either direction, about the value of work.

>
>> At last, I fully agree that the extra time that can be devoted to the
>> voluntary reviews is very limited...
>
> This may be true for many people. But, still there could be many people who would cherish the opportunity to review papers interesting to them.

I agree that better opportunities for volunteers would be useful. The Transactions on Networking is in the process of setting up a system for volunteering, so that there's a database of reviewer candidates for editors to draw on, as one more source.

>
>> Just check _when_ reviews are submited now, _how_ many reviews are still
>> missing, etc.etc.
>
> A major reason for this, in my view, is the inability of the current system to tap the reviewer pool properly.

That's one point I tend to agree with - the "pick from the people I know" mechanism scales badly, particularly as the topic breadth increases and the geographic spread of the discipline gets larger.

>
>> This system may possibly work for small numbers (<50). It will never scale for x100 submissions.
>
> That is really an assumption that needs to be tested.

The best thing to do is to run a conference and try it. Non-blind reviewing, for example, was tried (for Global Internet) and the results of the experiment were published. They were not definitive, but interesting.

Henning
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T10:37:00.001-07:00

Hi Marco,

>May be somehow out of topic, but I don't see the equation more
>review(er)s => more fair selection process.

>My understanding is that more review(er)s => more noise, more variance,
>larger grey area, more random selection.

But the authors would be able to rebut bad reviews. The ability of refute bad reviews is a major advantage of the proposed system. The TPC mentor can ultimately judge the worth of a review.

>Add to this that the review(er)s are now "auto-assigned" (by reviewers
>that voluntarily review a paper). The noise can only increase:
>non-experts attracted by a paper will only provide modest and light
>reviews at best.

These non-expert reviews will only get as much weight as they deserve. On the other hand, any expert, high quality voluntary reviews can significantly improve the overall review process. I think it is overly pessimistic to assume that voluntary reviews would be bad quality. They could be bad quality. They could be very good quality as well.

>Yes this happens also now, but all the claiming and paper assignment
>phases should guarantee a good match between expertize and fairness etc.

In my view, there are many people (including myself) who have suffered from bad, unfair reviews over the years and feel helpless against the system. The existing system does not meet the fairness expectations of many people.

>At last, I fully agree that the extra time that can be devoted to the
>voluntary reviews is very limited...

This may be true for many people. But, still there could be many people who would cherish the opportunity to review papers interesting to them.

>Just check _when_ reviews are submited now, _how_ many reviews are still
>missing, etc.etc.

A major reason for this, in my view, is the inability of the current system to tap the reviewer pool properly.

>This system may possibly work for small numbers (<50). It will never scale for x100 submissions.

That is really an assumption that needs to be tested.

Thanks
Mukul

> Osama,
>
>
>> I believe the problem is not only selectivity but the limited pool of
>> available reviewers. In the proposed system, you still have official
>> reviewers and you need more voluntary ones for the idea to work. Who has
>> time to be loaded with additional reviews?
>>
> I think many conferences, e.g. Infocom, will be able to attract a large pool of voluntary reviewers. It may not be so for less known conferences. BTW, the proposed system does not _depend_ on voluntary reviewers. Official reviewers are there to make sure that paper does receive a certain minimum number of reviews. The fact that any one can review and that the authors have ample opportunity to rebut reviews allows for a more fair and more thorough review process than the current one.
>
>
>> Many of the bad papers are resubmitted "as is" to other conferences after
>> rejection. Many authors just believe the reviewers are wrong/unfamiliar
>> with their work.
>> In addition, bad papers may not be interesting enough to attract voluntary
>> reviewers.
>>
> As I said before, the inability of a paper to attract voluntary reviews is not a problem.
>
>
>
>> plaigrism: discussed before
>>
> If you think your idea has been stolen, all you have to do is file a complaint against the offender with the timestamp of your submitted paper.
>
>
>> fairness: "interesting" papers will recieve more reviews than
>>
> "non-interesting" (and not necessarily bad) papers
>
> There is no unfairness here. Non-interesting papers will still receive official reviews. Since there is ample opportunity for the authors to rebut the reviews, hopefully there wont be any more complaints about unfair reviews. Since the process is open, impartial observers would come to know if the review process has been unfair.
>
>
>> abuse: A malicious author may fake several identities to provide good
>> reviews or may ask couple of freinds to do so. The control of such abuse
>> will be harder.
>>
> Ethics, ethics, ethics. The TPC mentors will know the true identities of the reviewers (even if they are using pseudonyms for the review). They can authenticate the identities if there is a concern. The authors can be asked for past collaborators and these people may be prevented from reviewing (as is done is proposal reviews). Severe penalities can be associated with a malicious attempt to influence the process.
>
> Thanks,
> Mukul
>
>
>
>>> Forget about the term "IETF". What's wrong with the following review
>>> process for a conference/journal:
>>>
>>> 1. The review process starts with the posting of the submitted paper on
>>> a
>>> public "wall" for a certain time window.
>>> 2. Any one can post their review of the paper on the "wall" before a
>>> certain deadline.
>>> 3. The paper has a TPC mentor that has power to accept/reject the paper.
>>> 4. TPC mentor assigns a certain number of official reviewers for the
>>> paper. However, their reviews do not necessarily carry more weight than
>>> those by voluntary reviewers.
>>> 5. The authors and reviewers communicate with each other, possibly using
>>> pseudonyms, on the "wall" during the time window for the review process.
>>> However, the authors are not allowed to submit a new version of the
>>> paper
>>> during the review process.
>>> 6. At the conclusion of the time window, the TPC mentor makes the
>>> accept/reject decision about the paper based on posted reviews and
>>> author/reviewer communication.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Mukul
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "L Wood"<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
>>> To: mukul@uwm.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
>>> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:58:41 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
>>> problems?
>>> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>>>
>>> Before advocating the IETF process, I suggest looking at the IRTF and
>>> seeing how the IETF process fails in research.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>> [mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mukul Goyal
>>> Sent: 14 August 2010 20:36
>>> To: Henning Schulzrinne
>>> Cc: tccc
>>> Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
>>> problems?
>>> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>>>
>>> Henning
>>>
>>>
>>>>> A related concern with IETF-style iterative reviewing is that the
>>>>> reviewer may end up contributing more than some of the authors. It
>>>>> is easy to imagine a conscientious reviewer going through many
>>>>> iterations with a student whose (co-author) advisor is preoccupied.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> And if people are complaining about conference
>>>> submission-to-publication delays of 5 months today, they will be
>>>> thrilled
>>>> when they see the 5-year delays from -00 I-D to RFC...
>>>>
>>> There is no suggestion that the review process would extend for 5 years.
>>> It would still be same as before. Just that it would be open.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In general, without stating what you're trying to optimize and which
>>>> problem you are trying to solve (quality? pick future faculty?
>>>> timeliness? perception of fairness), the discussion of mechanisms seems
>>>> a
>>>> bit besides the point.
>>>>
>>> In my mind, the problem is fairness of the review process. Another
>>> problem, that such a model may possibly solve, is dearth of reviewers
>>> and
>>> submission of sub-quality papers.
>>>
>>>
>>>> To once again cite the IETF process: first, you need a requirements
>>>> draft.
>>>>
>>> By IETF model, I was basically referring to its open review process.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Mukul
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tccc mailing list
>>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tccc mailing list
>>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tccc mailing list
>>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -----------
> Osama Bazan, PhD
> Post Doctoral Fellow
> Electrical and Computer Engineering
> Ryerson University
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> Phone: +1 416 979 5000 Ext. 4528
> Webpage: http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~obazan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>
>

--
Ciao, /\/\/\rco

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T09:04:00.000-07:00

May be somehow out of topic, but I don't see the equation more
review(er)s => more fair selection process.

My understanding is that more review(er)s => more noise, more variance,
larger grey area, more random selection.

Add to this that the review(er)s are now "auto-assigned" (by reviewers
that voluntarily review a paper). The noise can only increase:
non-experts attracted by a paper will only provide modest and light
reviews at best.

Yes this happens also now, but all the claiming and paper assignment
phases should guarantee a good match between expertize and fairness etc.

At last, I fully agree that the extra time that can be devoted to the
voluntary reviews is very limited...
Just check _when_ reviews are submited now, _how_ many reviews are still
missing, etc.etc.

This system may possibly work for small numbers (<50). It will never
scale for x100 submissions.

My 2c
Marco

--
Ciao, /\/\/\rco

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] Call for book chapters. Book title: Mobile Ad hoc Networks: Current Status and Future Trends

2010-08-16T08:46:00.000-07:00

Call for book chapters

Book title: Mobile Ad hoc Networks: Current Status and Future Trends

Mobile Ad hoc Network (MANET) consists of a large number of mobile nodes with processing and wireless transmission capability. MANETs are decentralized having dynamic topology. The major issues in MANETs are the limited resources, mobility of the mobile nodes. Physical and MAC layer issues, routing in high mobility, ensuring Quality of Service (QoS), security, all these are various facets of MANET research issues. Though many of the issues have been solved from various points of views and for various types of application scenarios, many other still remain as open research issues. This book will include advance information of MANETs, current and existing mechanisms and development, and future expectations in
the relevant areas. The book could be a valuable reference book for researchers, industry professionals, and academics. It could be used as a text book for graduate students as almost all the concerned areas will be covered.

Guest Editors:

Shafiullah Khan, Kohat University of Science and Technology (KUST), Pakistan
Jaime Lloret, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain
Jesus Hamilton Ortiz, University of castilla y la Mancha, Spain
Jonathan Loo, School of Engineering and Information, Middlesex University, UK

Publisher:

CRC Press: Taylor and Francis
Auerbach-Publications,
www.auerbach-publications.com

Submission email: ijcnis@gmail.com

Deadlines:
Chapter Submission deadline: 25th September, 2010
Acceptance Notification: 25th October, 2010
Revised manuscript Submission: 25th November, 2010
Publication of book: second quarter of 2011.
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T08:19:00.000-07:00

Osama,

>I believe the problem is not only selectivity but the limited pool of
>available reviewers. In the proposed system, you still have official
>reviewers and you need more voluntary ones for the idea to work. Who has
>time to be loaded with additional reviews?

I think many conferences, e.g. Infocom, will be able to attract a large pool of voluntary reviewers. It may not be so for less known conferences. BTW, the proposed system does not _depend_ on voluntary reviewers. Official reviewers are there to make sure that paper does receive a certain minimum number of reviews. The fact that any one can review and that the authors have ample opportunity to rebut reviews allows for a more fair and more thorough review process than the current one.

>Many of the bad papers are resubmitted "as is" to other conferences after
>rejection. Many authors just believe the reviewers are wrong/unfamiliar
>with their work.
>In addition, bad papers may not be interesting enough to attract voluntary
>reviewers.

As I said before, the inability of a paper to attract voluntary reviews is not a problem.

>plaigrism: discussed before

If you think your idea has been stolen, all you have to do is file a complaint against the offender with the timestamp of your submitted paper.

>fairness: "interesting" papers will recieve more reviews than
"non-interesting" (and not necessarily bad) papers

There is no unfairness here. Non-interesting papers will still receive official reviews. Since there is ample opportunity for the authors to rebut the reviews, hopefully there wont be any more complaints about unfair reviews. Since the process is open, impartial observers would come to know if the review process has been unfair.

>abuse: A malicious author may fake several identities to provide good
>reviews or may ask couple of freinds to do so. The control of such abuse
>will be harder.

Ethics, ethics, ethics. The TPC mentors will know the true identities of the reviewers (even if they are using pseudonyms for the review). They can authenticate the identities if there is a concern. The authors can be asked for past collaborators and these people may be prevented from reviewing (as is done is proposal reviews). Severe penalities can be associated with a malicious attempt to influence the process.

Thanks,
Mukul

>> Forget about the term "IETF". What's wrong with the following review
>> process for a conference/journal:
>>
>> 1. The review process starts with the posting of the submitted paper on
>> a
>> public "wall" for a certain time window.
>> 2. Any one can post their review of the paper on the "wall" before a
>> certain deadline.
>> 3. The paper has a TPC mentor that has power to accept/reject the paper.
>> 4. TPC mentor assigns a certain number of official reviewers for the
>> paper. However, their reviews do not necessarily carry more weight than
>> those by voluntary reviewers.
>> 5. The authors and reviewers communicate with each other, possibly using
>> pseudonyms, on the "wall" during the time window for the review process.
>> However, the authors are not allowed to submit a new version of the
>> paper
>> during the review process.
>> 6. At the conclusion of the time window, the TPC mentor makes the
>> accept/reject decision about the paper based on posted reviews and
>> author/reviewer communication.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mukul
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "L Wood" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
>> To: mukul@uwm.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
>> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:58:41 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
>> problems?
>> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>>
>> Before advocating the IETF process, I suggest looking at the IRTF and
>> seeing how the IETF process fails in research.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> [mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mukul Goyal
>> Sent: 14 August 2010 20:36
>> To: Henning Schulzrinne
>> Cc: tccc
>> Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
>> problems?
>> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>>
>> Henning
>>
>>>>
>>>> A related concern with IETF-style iterative reviewing is that the
>>>> reviewer may end up contributing more than some of the authors. It
>>>> is easy to imagine a conscientious reviewer going through many
>>>> iterations with a student whose (co-author) advisor is preoccupied.
>>
>>>And if people are complaining about conference
>>>submission-to-publication delays of 5 months today, they will be
>>> thrilled
>>> when they see the 5-year delays from -00 I-D to RFC...
>>
>> There is no suggestion that the review process would extend for 5 years.
>> It would still be same as before. Just that it would be open.
>>
>>>In general, without stating what you're trying to optimize and which
>>> problem you are trying to solve (quality? pick future faculty?
>>> timeliness? perception of fairness), the discussion of mechanisms seems
>>> a
>>> bit besides the point.
>>
>> In my mind, the problem is fairness of the review process. Another
>> problem, that such a model may possibly solve, is dearth of reviewers
>> and
>> submission of sub-quality papers.
>>
>>> To once again cite the IETF process: first, you need a requirements
>>> draft.
>>
>> By IETF model, I was basically referring to its open review process.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mukul
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tccc mailing list
>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tccc mailing list
>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tccc mailing list
>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>
>
>
>

-----------
Osama Bazan, PhD
Post Doctoral Fellow
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Ryerson University
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Phone: +1 416 979 5000 Ext. 4528
Webpage: http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~obazan

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-16T07:43:00.000-07:00

Mukul
> Osama
>
>>1- How many people in the community have the time and interest to involve
>>as voluntary reviewers? This process needs X reviewers/paper where X>3.
>> In
>>fact, 3 expert reviewers/paper is already difficult in the current system
>
> Current system allows only the TPC members to select reviewers. That's why
> it is difficult to find 3 expert reviewers per paper. I think there would
> be many voluntary reviewers for "interesting" papers.
>
I believe the problem is not only selectivity but the limited pool of
available reviewers. In the proposed system, you still have official
reviewers and you need more voluntary ones for the idea to work. Who has
time to be loaded with additional reviews?

>>2- What percentage of "junk" papers's authors believe their work is not
>> good?
>
> That is fine. If I think my paper is ready for the world, I submit it. I
> will know how good it really is after the review process.
>
Many of the bad papers are resubmitted "as is" to other conferences after
rejection. Many authors just believe the reviewers are wrong/unfamiliar
with their work.
In addition, bad papers may not be interesting enough to attract voluntary
reviewers.
>>3- Does TPC mentor have enough time to moderate the debate?
>
> Yes, the proposed model may require more work on part of mentors of
> "interesting" papers.
>
>>4- Other issues will be escalated such as bias and plaigrism and fairness
> among papers.
>
> Why do you think so??
>
plaigrism: discussed before
fairness: "interesting" papers will recieve more reviews than
"non-interesting" (and not necessarily bad) papers
abuse: A malicious author may fake several identities to provide good
reviews or may ask couple of freinds to do so. The control of such abuse
will be harder.

> Thanks
> Mukul
>

Thanks.
Osama.
>> Forget about the term "IETF". What's wrong with the following review
>> process for a conference/journal:
>>
>> 1. The review process starts with the posting of the submitted paper on
>> a
>> public "wall" for a certain time window.
>> 2. Any one can post their review of the paper on the "wall" before a
>> certain deadline.
>> 3. The paper has a TPC mentor that has power to accept/reject the paper.
>> 4. TPC mentor assigns a certain number of official reviewers for the
>> paper. However, their reviews do not necessarily carry more weight than
>> those by voluntary reviewers.
>> 5. The authors and reviewers communicate with each other, possibly using
>> pseudonyms, on the "wall" during the time window for the review process.
>> However, the authors are not allowed to submit a new version of the
>> paper
>> during the review process.
>> 6. At the conclusion of the time window, the TPC mentor makes the
>> accept/reject decision about the paper based on posted reviews and
>> author/reviewer communication.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mukul
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "L Wood" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
>> To: mukul@uwm.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
>> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:58:41 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
>> problems?
>> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>>
>> Before advocating the IETF process, I suggest looking at the IRTF and
>> seeing how the IETF process fails in research.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> [mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mukul Goyal
>> Sent: 14 August 2010 20:36
>> To: Henning Schulzrinne
>> Cc: tccc
>> Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
>> problems?
>> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>>
>> Henning
>>
>>>>
>>>> A related concern with IETF-style iterative reviewing is that the
>>>> reviewer may end up contributing more than some of the authors. It
>>>> is easy to imagine a conscientious reviewer going through many
>>>> iterations with a student whose (co-author) advisor is preoccupied.
>>
>>>And if people are complaining about conference
>>>submission-to-publication delays of 5 months today, they will be
>>> thrilled
>>> when they see the 5-year delays from -00 I-D to RFC...
>>
>> There is no suggestion that the review process would extend for 5 years.
>> It would still be same as before. Just that it would be open.
>>
>>>In general, without stating what you're trying to optimize and which
>>> problem you are trying to solve (quality? pick future faculty?
>>> timeliness? perception of fairness), the discussion of mechanisms seems
>>> a
>>> bit besides the point.
>>
>> In my mind, the problem is fairness of the review process. Another
>> problem, that such a model may possibly solve, is dearth of reviewers
>> and
>> submission of sub-quality papers.
>>
>>> To once again cite the IETF process: first, you need a requirements
>>> draft.
>>
>> By IETF model, I was basically referring to its open review process.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mukul
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tccc mailing list
>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tccc mailing list
>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tccc mailing list
>> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] CfP: 1st IEEE International Workshop on Consumer eHealth Platforms, Services and Applications (CeHPSA)

2010-08-16T05:02:00.000-07:00

Call for Papers

1st IEEE International Workshop on Consumer eHealth Platforms, Services
and Applications (CeHPSA)

8th or 11th January 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada

Satellite Workshop of 8th IEEE Consumer Communications & Networking
Conference

Goals and Topics Healthcare globally is going through a major transition
that promises to provide the unprecedented delivery of
services in new and novel ways. Medical infrastructures, built on
advances in information and communication technologies (ICT),
aim to fully distribute services in a much more flexible way. This will
enable the seamless flow of information within and
amongst medical facilities, practitioners and service users. ICT will
ensure that services are highly available and provide
enriched information. Multiple modes of interaction will be possible and
this will all happen regardless of a user's location or
the devices they use. This vision is commonly referred to as eHealth and
is one of the most rapidly growing areas in health today
with an estimated annual budget of Euros 17.4 billion in Europe and $36
billion in the US.

The drive towards this growth in interest can be directly attributed to
the fact that healthcare is becoming increasingly more
difficult to sustain because of the rising costs associated with people
living longer and an increase in diseases, such as
Alzheimer's and dementia. This presents a unique opportunity to develop
new and novel platforms services and applications that
exploit information within and across the healthcare sector to
significantly improve the quality of patient care and improve and
execute clinical processes more efficiently. This will help to form a
closer relationship between healthcare providers and
service users and fundamentally help support people in their daily
lives. Furthermore, it addresses the growing problem of
healthcare seclusion amongst rural areas and low-income nations where
they too, through eHealth, can benefit from life-critical
information, help, support and training. All this has the ability to
empower people and encourage personal consumer healthcare
beyond what is currently possible.

Nonetheless, due to the potential criticality of healthcare and the
complex coordination and delivery of healthcare services it
is not surprising that we have not seen widespread adoption of ICT in
health. Yet eHealth presents a unique and high impacting
application of ICT. The healthcare domain is sensitive to change and
this will require new processes, methodologies and tools and
this comes at a time where sustainable health is becoming increasingly
more difficult. The workshop seeks workshop proposal
submissions (consisting of a paper) on all theoretical and practical
aspects of next generation consumer eHealth platforms,
services and applications, as well as experimental studies of fielded
systems on topics including, but not limited to, those
shown below:

- Wearable and implantable sensors
- Sensor Networks for ubiquitous and pervasive healthcare
- Physiological models for interpreting medical sensor data
- Wireless Communications in Healthcare
- Energy harvesting
- Wireless Body Area Networks
- Wearable home based health monitoring technologies
- Ambient Assistive Living
- Wireless Homecare
- Mobile Healthcare (mHealth)
- Personal Healthcare (pHealth)
- Stream reasoning algorithms for behaviour and activity monitoring
- Semantic Web and Healthcare
- Standards and Frameworks
- Interoperability
- Human to machine interfaces
- Middleware for eHealth
- Service and Device Discovery
- Telemedicine
- Clinical Applications and evaluations
- Healthcare applications for chronic disease management
- Health promotion and disease prevention
- Support solutions for cognitive decline
- Support for physical defects
- Usability issues
- Assistive Devices
- Activity Recognition
- Telerehabilitation
- Electronic Patient Record
- Implementations and case studies
- Bioinformatics
- Clinical Decision Support Systems
- Clinical Informatics
- Consumer Health Informatics
- eHealth Grids
- Privacy and Security Issues in Healthcare
- Data Protection

Guidelines for Submission
Submitted papers must represent original material that is not currently
under review in any other conference or journal, and has
not been previously published. Paper length should not exceed five-page
technical paper manuscript. The paper should be used as
the basis for a 20 - 30 minute workshop presentation. Papers should be
submitted in a .pdf or .ps format by selecting CCNC'11 on
the EDAS paper submission website and then selecting the workshop
submission link. A separate cover sheet should show the title
of the paper, the author(s) name(s) and affiliation(s), and the address
(including e-mail, telephone, and fax) to which the
correspondence should be sent. All accepted papers will be published in
the conference proceedings and on IEEE Xplore. At least
one author of accepted papers is required to register at the full
registration rate.

Important Dates
Deadline for workshop papers: August 24, 2010
Acceptance of workshop papers: September 15, 2010
Camera-ready version (hard): October 1, 2010
Workshop presentations: January 8 or 11, 2011

Workshop co-Chairs
Dr Paul Fergus, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Dr Mario Kolberg, University of Stirling, UK

--
The Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2009/2010
The University of Stirling is a charity registered in Scotland,
number SC 011159.

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] cfp: the 2011 IEEE International Workshop on Ubiquitous Media and Embedded Systems (UMES 2011)

2010-08-15T23:37:00.001-07:00

IEEE UMES 2011 Call for Papers - Text versoion (Working Draft)

We apologize for multiples copies. Please circulate this CFP among
your colleagues and students.

********************************************************************************************

The 2011 IEEE International Workshop on Ubiquitous Media and Embedded
System (UMES 2011)

Busan, Korea, 26th-28th May, 2011

http://cse.stfx.ca/~UMES2011/index.html
********************************************************************************************

In conjunction with the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel
and Distributed Processing and Application (ISPA2011)
Introduction

====================
Introduction
====================
Today with the fast developments in electronics industry and the
amazing growing of the potential customers,
media are increasingly ubiquitous: more and more people live in a
world of Internet pop-ups and streaming television,
mobile phone texting and video clips, MP3 players and pod-casting.
These ubiquitous media creates our consumer and brand environment
and has been contributing extensively and more closed to our life
experience, especially its applications in mobile and other embedded
devices.
Therefore, the media, embedded and especially their emergence
technologies have become the art-to-state research topics and are
expected to be
the important roles of human life in the future.
The 2011 IEEE International Workshop on ��Ubiquitous Media and
Embedded Systems�� (UMES 2011) will address the broad challenges of
integrating
Ubiquitous Media technologies into everyday objects, devices and
activities with ubiquitous computing and embedded systems.

====================
Scopes and Interests
====================
The topics of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:
Track 1: Ubiquitous Media
--- UM Modeling, Simulation and Design
--- UM Coding, Processing, Communication, Services and Application
--- Network Architecture, Protocols and Management for UM
--- UM Device: energy conservation, Size Minimizing, and Hommization
--- QoS and Performance��s Measurement and Evaluation in UM
--- UM Security: Privacy, Trust, Encryption and Authentication
--- Standards and Specification for UM
--- Um Development, Fusion and Application in 3G, Sensor Network, IOT
(Internet of Things), etc
--- UM human-machine Interface and Interaction
--- Game and Virtual Reality Technologies
--- Media Streams Technology and application
--- UM computing and Technologies in Embedded Systems
--- New Features, Technologies and Current Challenges in UM
Track 2: Embedded Systems
--- Embedded System: Architecture, Protocol, Application and Specification
--- Real-time Processor, Kernel, OS and Middleware for Embedded System
--- Multi-core, Multi-threading, and Virtualization Design methods for
Embedded System
--- System-on-Chip and Network-on-Chip Design and Implement for Mobile
Cellular Systems Future Development,
IEEE 802 Systems Evolution, Spectrum policies, Satellite Systems,
CDMA, WCDMA, GSM, 3G, etc
--- Performance, Power, Reliability Analysis Methods for Embedded Systems
--- Embedded Hardware/Software Support and Co-Design
--- Resource management and QoS Supports
--- Hardware/Software Debugging Technologies and Tools
--- Security and Data protection
--- Novel Circuits and architectures for embedded multimedia architectures
--- Embedded Systems Design for Mobile Multimedia Service: Location
Based Services, Tracking and Positioning, etc.
--- Emerging New Trends for Embedded Systems and its design for
Ubiquitous Multimedia

======================
Submission Guidelines
======================
UMES2011 will seek original papers and experience reports. All papers
and reports should be written in English conforming to the
IEEE standard conference (8.5"*11",Two-Column) as shown in [IEEE
Proceedings Format].
All the submissions should be submitted by using Online Paper
Submission System within 8 pages.
The workshop proceeding will be published by IEEE Computer Society
(will be indexed by EI Compendex & ISTP)

======================
Publications
======================
Every submitted paper will be carefully reviewed by at least three
members of the Program Committee. All accepted and presented papers
will be included in the conference proceedings published by IEEE.
Authors should submit a paper at most 8 pages in length with IEEE CS
format by using online systems for review. Submission of a paper
should be regarded as a commitment that, if the paper be accepted,
at least one of the authors will register and attend the conference.

======================
Best Paper Award
======================
One best paper award, selected by the organizing committee, based on
referee reviews, will be presented to the author(s) of the best paper
submitted to the conference along with other awards presented during
the social event.

============================================
Journal Special Issue Information
============================================
Distinguished selected papers accepted and presented in UMES2011,
after further extensions, will be published in special issues of
the following prestigious Journals:
--- IEEE Systems Journal (SCI Indexed)
--- Journal of Embedded Computing, IOS Press, the Netherlands
--- Journal of Mobile Multimedia, Rinton Press, Princeton, New Jersey
--- International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications,
Emerald Publisher, UK

======================
Important Dates
======================
Paper submission due: Dec. 1st, 2010
Notification of acceptance: Feb. 1st, 2011
Camera-ready paper due: Feb. 15th, 2011
Registration due: Feb. 15th, 2011
Conference day: May 26th-28th, 2011

======================
Workshop Organizer
======================
-- Steering Chairs --
Jianhua Ma, Hosei University, Japan
Laurence T. Yang, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada

-- General Chairs --
Daniel C. Doolan, Robert Gordon University, UK
Huansheng Ning, Beihang University, China

-- Program Chairs --
Min Chen, Seoul National University, South Korea
Xingang Liu, Yonsei University, South Korea
Xiaocui Sun, Hongkong Polytechnic University, China

-- Publicity Committee --
Chenghua Li, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada
Xiaodong Yu, Hilandwe Comm. Tech. Ltd., China
Meng Hui Lim, Yonsei University, South Korea
Shiming Hu, UESTC of China
Gen Li, Yonsei University, South Korea
Chao Sun, UESTC of China

==============
Contracts
==============
If you have any question about UMES2011, please feel free to connect us.
--- For general enquiries about UMES 2011
Xingang Liu, Yonsei Univ., South Korea, hanksliu.xg@gmail.com

--- For enquiries about paper submission and technical program
umes2011@gmail.com

--- Welcome to visit UMES2001 website
http://cse.stfx.ca/~UMES2011/index.html

-----------------The End ------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] [CFP]P2P-NVE 2010 (Deadline, August 20, 2010, is 4 days away)

2010-08-15T22:58:00.001-07:00

Dear Colleagues,

Please be advised that the paper submission deadline (August 20, 2010) of
"The 4th International
Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Networked Virtual Environments (P2P-NVE 2010)" is 4
days away.
P2P-NVE 2010 will be held in conjunction with "The 16th International
Conference on Parallel and
Distributed Systems (ICPADS 2010)," held on December 8-10, 2010 in Shanghai,
China. You are invited
to submit your papers to P2P-NVE 2010, whose CFP is attached. All Accepted
papers will be published
by IEEE Press (indexed by EI) and will be included in IEEE Xplore digital
library.

Best regards,
Jehn-Ruey Jiang
Program Chair of P2P-NVE 2010

=============================================================================
Call for Papers

The 4th International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Networked Virtual
Environments (P2P-NVE 2010)
in conjunction with
The 16th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems
(ICPADS 2010)
December 8 -10, 2010
Shanghai, China
*http://acnlab.csie.ncu.edu.tw/P2PNVE2010/*

=============================================================================
PURPOSE AND SCOPE

A networked virtual environment (NVE), also known as a distributed virtual
environment (DVE) or collaborative virtual environment (CVE), is a
computer-generated virtual world where multiple users can assume virtual
representatives (or avatars) to concurrently interact with each other via
networked links. Examples of NVEs include early DARPA SIMNET and DIS systems
as well as currently booming Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs).
Some recent studies propose using P2P architectures to increase NVE
scalability and to reduce NVE management and deployment costs. Typical
examples of such studies are P2P voice chatting, P2P 3D streaming, P2P game
state management, and so on. In spite of the success of the studies, we need
more studies about state consistency control, persistent data storage,
multimedia data dissemination, cheat-prevention, topology mismatching, and
virtual world interoperability to construct NVEs of better performance.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Networked
Virtual Environments were held in conjunction with the 13th, 14th and 15th
International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems in 2007, 2008
and 2009, respectively. To adhere to the theme of P2P-NVE workshops, the
theme of P2P-NVE 2010 is to solicit original and previously unpublished new
ideas on general P2P schemes as well as on the design and realization of P2P
NVEs. The workshop aims to facilitate discussions and idea exchanges by both
academics and practitioners. Authors are invited to submit an electronic
version of original, unpublished manuscripts, not to exceed 8
double-columned, single-spaced pages, to the workshop. Submitted papers
should be in accordance with IEEE Computer Society guidelines, and will be
refereed by reviewers in terms of relevance, originality, contribution,
correctness, and presentation.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

- P2P systems and infrastructures
- Applications of P2P systems
- Performance evaluation of P2P systems
- Trust and security issues in P2P systems
- Network support for P2P systems
- Fault tolerance in P2P systems
- Data structures for P2P systems
- Efficient P2P resource lookup and sharing
- Distributed Hash Tables (DHTs) and related issues
- Solutions to topology mismatching for P2P overlays
- P2P overlays for NVEs
- P2P NVE multicast
- P2P NVE interoperability
- P2P NVE content distribution
- P2P NVE 3D streaming
- P2P NVE voice communications
- P2P NVE architecture designs
- P2P NVE prototypes
- P2P NVE consistency control
- Persistent storage for P2P NVEs
- Security and cheat-prevention mechanisms for P2P games
- P2P control for mobile NVEs
- P2P NVE applications on mobile devices

IMPORTANT DATES

Submission: August 20, 2010
Notification: September 15, 2010
Camera ready: October 1, 2010

PAPER SUBMISSION

Authors are invited to submit an electronic version of original, unpublished
manuscripts, not to exceed 8 double-columned, single-spaced pages, to the
workshop. Submitted papers should be in PDF format in accordance with IEEE
Computer Society guidelines, and will be refereed by reviewers in terms of
originality, contribution, correctness, and presentation.
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] [ICTC 2010] CFP Due Sept.1, 2010

2010-08-15T21:46:00.001-07:00

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for cross and multiple postings.
Please circulate to colleagues and prospective interested parties.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

***********************************************************************
Call for Papers

International Conference on ICT Convergence 2010 (ICTC 2010) (Broadcasting
and Communications for Smart and Green Convergence Services)
http://www.ictc2010.org
November 17-19, 2010, Ramada Plaza Hotel, Jeju Island, Korea
***********************************************************************

Important Dates:
- Paper Submission Deadline(6-page Full Paper or 2-page Short Paper):
Sept.1, 2010
- Acceptance Notification: Oct. 1, 2010
- Camera Ready Submission (6-page Full Paper or 2-page Short Paper): Oct.
20, 2010

General Information:
We have witnessed fast development of various information and
communication technologies in the first decade of the 21st century.
At the same time, there has been a tremendous amount of efforts to fuse
these individual technologies to provide non-precedent services to the
end users. Also, there have been a lot of trials to apply information
and communication technology (ICT) to other industrial fields such as
green convergence, smart screen, next generation broadcasting and media,
mobile convergence networks, and other ICT convergence applications and
services, under the name of ICT convergence.

The first International Conference on ICT Convergence (ICTC 2010) aims
at providing a technical forum for researchers and engineers to interact
and disseminate information on the latest developments in advanced
information technologies and services focusing on their convergence.
ICTC 2010 solicits original, unpublished contributions in all aspects
of ICT convergence. Submitted articles must not be concurrently
considered elsewhere for publication. The conference is organized by
KICS and ETRI, Korea, with the technical co-sponsorship of IEEE
Communications Society (pending).
All accepted papers will be published in the proceedings with assigned
IEEE ISBN number and will also be included in the IEEE Xplore Digital
Library (pending).

The topics include, but are not limited to:

- Green Convergence Services:
Green Communication, Energy Management System,
Environmental Monitoring System

- Smart Screen Services:
N-Screen Services, Virtual Computing, HCI, Intelligent Interface

- Next Generation Broadcasting and Media:
DTV, 3DTV, UHDTV, Mobile TV

- Radio Technologies and Applications:
CR, mm-Wave/Terra-Hertz Applications, Medical Applications,
RF Energy Technologies

- Satellite Broadcasting and Communications:
Ka-band/Ultra-broadband, Satellite/Terrestrial Convergence,
Satellite Navigation

- Future Internet:
Optical Network and Systems, BcN, NGN

- Mobile Convergence Networks:
LTE-Advanced, Advanced Mobile WiMAX, IMT-Advanced and Beyond, WLAN

- Machine-to-Machine (M2M):
WPAN, WBAN, RFID/USN, Visible Light Communication

- Convergence Application Security:
Mobile and Network Security, Application Security,
Cloud Computing Security, Cognitive Security

- ICT Convergence Applications:
u-Health, u-Education, u-Home, u-ITS, u-City, etc.

- Public Protection and Disaster Relief (PPDR) Applications:
Terrestrial, Maritime, Military

- Convergence Service Engineering:
Financial IT, Business IT, Personal Environmental Services

- Convergence Software:
Embedded SW, Contents and Applications, Knowledge Convergence Services

- Communication and Network Technologies:
Communication Theory, Information Theory, Ad-hoc and Mesh Networks

Submission Guidelines:
Authors MUST submit either a 6-page full paper or a 2-page short paper
in PDF format through the EDAS web site (http://edas.info/N9168).
The submissions should be formatted with single-spaced, two-column pages
using at least 10 pt (or higher) size fonts on A4 or letter pages in
IEEE style format. The camera-ready version for an accepted paper
cannot exceed 6 pages for a full paper and 2 pages for a short paper.
Detailed formatting and submission instructions will be available on
the conference web site (http://www.ictc2010.org).

Selected Journal Publication:
All accepted papers will appear in IEEE Xplore Digital Library only if
at least one of the authors attends the conference to present the paper.
Also, selected papers will be invited for publication in upcoming issue
of JCN (Journal of Communications and Networks), which is a SCI-indexed
international journal published by KICS, after a suitable peer-review
and further revisions (http://www.jcn.or.kr).

Best Paper Awards:
The ICTC 2010 will present the Best Paper Awards to selected outstanding
papers.

Committee:
International Advisory Committee:
Chair: Eun-Soo Kim (Kwangwoon Univ.)
Co-Chair: Heung-Nam Kim (ETRI)
Steering Committee:
Chair: Kyung-Sup Kwak (Inha Univ.)
Organizing Committee:
Chair: Jong-Seon No (SNU)
Co-Chairs: Sang-il Park (KCC), Hojin Lee (ETRI), Randy Giles (Bell Labs
Seoul)
Vice-Chair: Chung G. Kang (Korea Univ.)
Co-Vice-Chair: DongSeung Kwon (ETRI)
Technical Program Committee:
Chair: Yeong Min Jang (Kookmin Univ.)
Vice-Chairs: Jaemin Ahn (Chungnam National Univ.), Nam Kim (Chungbuk
National Univ.),
Hanuk Jung (KT), Won Ryu (ETRI)
Secretariat: Insoo Sohn (Dongguk Univ., isohn@dongguk.edu)

Hosted by Korea Communications Commission (KCC)
Organized by Korea Information and Communications Society (KICS),
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] Call for papers: QShine 2010

2010-08-15T19:14:00.000-07:00

CFP: QShine 2010 ( Submission Due: Aug. 20, 2010 )
Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP

============================================================
QShine 2010
The 7th Annual International Conference on
Heterogeneous Networking for
Quality, Reliability, Security and Robustness
November 17 - 19, 2010, Houston, USA
http://www.qshine.org
Submission deadline: August 20, 2010
============================================================
Sponsored by ICST
Technically co-sponsored by CREATE-NET
In technical cooperation with ACM SIG Mobile and SIGSIM (approval pending)
============================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS
============================================================

++++++++

OVERVIEW

++++++++

The 7th International Conference on Heterogeneous Networking for Quality,
Reliability, Security and Robustness (QShine 2010) will focus on the
research challenges associated to the design and implementation of
large-scale wired and wireless networks and distributed systems. The aim of
this conference is to bring together research and practitioners to present
and share the latest results in the areas of performance, configuration,
cross-layer approaches, scalability, resilience and survivability of
large-scale heterogeneous networks and distributed systems. Following the
tradition of the previous QShine meetings, QShine 2010 will feature
prominent invited speakers as well as papers by top researchers in the
field.

Original papers addressing performance optimization and Quality of Service
support, ranging from the link layer to the application layer, over
large-scale wired and wireless networks and distributed system, are
solicited. Authors are encouraged to submit theoretical and/or experimental
results of significance. The scope of the conference includes, but is not
limited to:

* Quality of Service provisioning in wired and wireless networks and
distributed systems

* Design, implementation or architectures related to QoS-enabled networks
and distributed systems

* QoS routing in wired, peer-to-peer, overlay, and wireless networks and
distributed systems

* QoS-aware service composition in distributed systems

* QoS in WLAN, WPAN, WMAN and WiMAX (IEEE 802.11/15/16/20)

* QoS in wireless sensor and ad hoc networks

* QoS in cognitive radio networks

* QoS in green networking

* QoS for smart grid

* QoS in Vehicular Networks

* QoS support across heterogeneous wired and wireless sub-networks

* MAC protocols with QoS support in wireless networks

* Topology control for QoS support in wireless networks

* QoS and survivability in mobile environments

* Scheduling, resource management, queue management, and admission control

* QoS adaptation, modeling and measurements

* Game-theoretic aspects in wired, peer-to-peer, overlay, and wireless
networks and distributed systems

* Incentive engineering in wired, peer-to-peer, overlay, and wireless
networks and distributed systems

* Pricing, billing, and resource allocation in wired, overlay and wireless
networks

* Traffic analysis, traffic engineering, and traffic shaping in
heterogeneous environments

* Security protocols and algorithms in wired, overlay and wireless networks

* Scalability of large-scale overlay and wireless networks

* Resilience of overlay and wireless protocols

* Cross-layer protocol design in wireless networks

* Cross-layer performance optimization for energy, network lifetime, and
capacity

+++++++++++++++++++++

Organizing Committee

+++++++++++++++++++++

General Chair:

Xi Zhang, Texas A&M University, USA

Technical Program Chair:

Daji Qiao, Iowa State University, USA

Steering Committee Co-Chairs:

Imrich Chlamtac, Create-Net, Italy

Xi Zhang, Texas A&M University, USA

Sherman Xuemin Shen, University of Waterloo, Canada

+++++++++++++++

Important Dates

+++++++++++++++

Full Paper Due: August 20, 2010 (Fri) 5PM EST

Notification of Acceptance: October 08, 2010

Camera-ready version Due: October 20, 2010

Conference Dates: November 17 (Wed) - November 19 (Fri), 2010

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Submission Instructions

+++++++++++++++++++++++

QShine 2010 invites submission of manuscripts that present original
materials and that have not been previously published or under review by
another conference or journal. Prospective authors are encouraged to submit
a PDF version of the full paper in ACM conference proceedings format, which
are limited to 7 single-spaced two-column pages (including all figures and
references) in a 9 point font. All paper submissions will be handled
electronically through the EasyChair system at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=qshine2010

+++++++++++

Publication

+++++++++++

All submitted papers will go through a peer review process. Accepted papers
will be published by Springer in the Lecture Notes of the Institute for
Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering
(LNICST) series. During the review process, all reviewers have to indicate
whether the overall scientific quality of the paper they reviewed entitles
the paper to candidate for the Best Paper award. Among the best candidates,
the Program Chair and the General Chair select the Best Papers presented at
QShine 2010. The award is based on relevance, content, significance,
originality and presentation. Best Papers are rewarded with a Conference
Best Paper Certificate.

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] Postdoc Position at U. of Utah in Radio Tomography

2010-08-15T17:14:00.000-07:00

Dear Colleagues,

The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Sensing
and Processing Across Networks (SPAN) Lab at the University of Utah
invites applications for an open postdoctoral fellow position for
research in radio tomography, a research area at the intersection of
statistical signal processing, radio wave propagation, and wireless
networking. The SPAN lab, led by Prof. Neal Patwari, has significant
expertise in radio channel signal processing for location estimation
in wireless networks, including the 2008 ACM MobiCom Best Student
Research Demo Award, a 2009 IEEE Signal Processing Magazine Best Paper
Award, and significant popular press, including articles in MIT
Technology Review, ScienceNOW, Wired, Discover, Der Speigel, and The
Economist. This postdoctoral position would expand the
state-of-the-art in the capability of wireless networks to perform
localization, for both emergency situations, and for everyday
logistics applications.

About the Position:

The postdoctoral fellow position would start as early as September,
2010, and would last from one to three years, based on research
performance. The pay rate is 45,200 USD per year, and includes full
benefits.

The candidate must have a strong publication record including a
history of presenting / publishing in the top conferences and
journals. We are looking for a candidate with:

1) a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science,

2) both theoretical and experimental skills (including building and
deploying sensor networks),

3) a strong background in statistical signal processing, radio wave
propagation, and wireless networking.

About the University of Utah:

The University of Utah is located in Salt Lake City, Utah, which is
unique for the outdoor activities available within a short drive of a
major city. There are seven ski resorts within a 45 minute drive, six
US national parks within the state borders, and many other public
lands, including national forests accessible within minutes of Salt
Lake.

The University of Utah is well known for its research and
entreprenurial success. The U. of Utah was ranked 1st nationally,
tied with MIT, for creating new startup companies from research-based
inventions, by the Association of University Technology Managers. More
than 100 local companies have been founded by engineering graduates
and faculty. In the last fiscal year, the University of Utah received
$451 million in federal research funding, twice what it was six years
ago.

To Apply:

Application materials include (1) CV, (2) Link to homepage where most
significant publications are available, and (3) contact information
for three references. Send materials via email to Prof. Neal Patwari,
npatwari at ece dot utah dot edu, with the subject, Postdoc
Application.

--
Neal Patwari
Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering
Adjunct, School of Computing
University of Utah
http://span.ece.utah.edu/
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-15T14:59:00.001-07:00

On 16/08/2010 12:00 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:
[..]
> Current system allows only the TPC members to select reviewers.
> That's why it is difficult to find 3 expert reviewers per paper. I
> think there would be many voluntary reviewers for "interesting"
> papers.

I did a thought experiment on the idea of voluntary reviewers, and
ended up with something analogous to Slashdot. But perhaps I'm just
a pessimist ;)

cheers,
gja
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

[Tccc] CFP: ISWPC 2011

2010-08-15T12:02:00.001-07:00

International Symposium on Wireless Pervasive Computing 2011

23 – 25 February 2011 Hong Kong, China

http://www.iswpc.org/2011/

CALL FOR PAPERS
Wireless pervasive computing is a rapidly growing area that has attracted
significant attention due to its potential impact on the quality of life. To
enable wireless pervasive computing, it is necessary to integrate technologies
from the fields of distributed computing, networking, communications and signal
processing. The aim of this symposium is to provide a platform for researchers
in the area of wireless pervasive computing and related areas to showcase their
results, launch new ideas, as well as to interact with other researchers.
The scope of this symposium covers concepts and all enabling technologies of
wireless pervasive computing. This includes a huge variety of topics ranging
from wireless communications and networking to services and applications of
pervasive computing. A series of panel and tutorials will also seek to inform
and invoke interaction among researchers.
Prospective authors are invited to submit original technical papers for
presentation at the conference. Full papers have to be submitted via EDAS. The
maximum number of pages allowed is six. Proposals for tutorials are also
solicited, addressing emerging topics that relate to technical issues in
wireless communications and applications. All accepted papers will be published
on IEEE Xplore® (pending approval).
Extended versions of selected best papers will be considered for Special issues
of a journal "International Journal of Wireless Networks and Broadcasting
Technologies" published by IGI-global and "International Journal of Information
Technology, Communications and Convergence (IJITCC)" by Inderscience.

Contributions are sought in (but not limited to) the following areas:

• Wireless peer-to-peer
• Wireless mesh networks
• Inter and intra vehicular communications
• Wireless sensor networks
• Green pervasive computing
• Advanced localization and tracking techniques
• Wireless video and multimedia
• Pervasive computing applications
• QoE in wireless systems
• Wireless security
• Cross-layer design
• Wireless routing
• Wireless network coding
• Ad-hoc networks
• Emergency networks
• Relay assisted and cooperative communications
• Cognitive radio
• UWB
• Propagation and channel characterization
• MIMO and multi-antenna communications
• Smart antennas
• CDMA, TDMA and FDMA air interface
• Wireless access techniques
• WPANs and WLANs
• OFDM, OFDMA
• Wi-MaX
• UMTS and LTE
• Game theory in wireless networks

Important Deadlines

Submission of full papers and proposals: 11 October 2010
Acceptance notification: 15 November 2010
Final camera ready copy: 29 November 2010

General Co-Chairs

Chi-Chung Cheung, Hong Kong

Naveen Chilamkurti, Australia

Technical Program Co-chairs

Sherali Zeadally, USA
Brahim Bensaou, Hong Kong
Sudip Misra, India

Steering Committee
Hsiao-Hwa Chen, Taiwan
Thanos Vasilakos, Greece
Abbas Jamalipour, Australia
Mohammad S. Obaidat, USA
Bharat Bhargava, USA
Boon Sain Yeo, Singapore
Mohammed Atiquzzaman, USA

Workshop Co-chairs
Ivan Lee , Australia
Alexey Vinel, Russia
Giovanni Giambene, Italy

Local Arrangement Chair
Wilson Chu, Hong Kong, China

Publication Chair
Roy Ho, Hong Kong, China

Web Chair
Xiaojun Hei, China

Publicity Co-Chairs
Scott Fowler, Sweden
Der-Jiunn Deng, Taiwan
Chih-Heng Ke, Taiwan

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-15T07:21:00.001-07:00

On Aug 15, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Mukul Goyal wrote:

> Osama
>
>> 1- How many people in the community have the time and interest to involve
>> as voluntary reviewers? This process needs X reviewers/paper where X>3. In
>> fact, 3 expert reviewers/paper is already difficult in the current system
>
> Current system allows only the TPC members to select reviewers.

You may want to check out a broader set of conferences. The far more typical model is that papers are assigned (typically, automatically or semi-automatically) to the TPC. The TPC-picks-reviewer model seems rare these days, I suspect, partially to ensure some quality control. (Some TPC members delegate reviews to, say, their students, but that's a separate issue.)

Henning

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

Osama

>1- How many people in the community have the time and interest to involve
>as voluntary reviewers? This process needs X reviewers/paper where X>3. In
>fact, 3 expert reviewers/paper is already difficult in the current system

Current system allows only the TPC members to select reviewers. That's why it is difficult to find 3 expert reviewers per paper. I think there would be many voluntary reviewers for "interesting" papers.

>2- What percentage of "junk" papers's authors believe their work is not good?

That is fine. If I think my paper is ready for the world, I submit it. I will know how good it really is after the review process.

>3- Does TPC mentor have enough time to moderate the debate?

Yes, the proposed model may require more work on part of mentors of "interesting" papers.

>4- Other issues will be escalated such as bias and plaigrism and fairness
among papers.

Why do you think so??

Thanks
Mukul

> Forget about the term "IETF". What's wrong with the following review
> process for a conference/journal:
>
> 1. The review process starts with the posting of the submitted paper on a
> public "wall" for a certain time window.
> 2. Any one can post their review of the paper on the "wall" before a
> certain deadline.
> 3. The paper has a TPC mentor that has power to accept/reject the paper.
> 4. TPC mentor assigns a certain number of official reviewers for the
> paper. However, their reviews do not necessarily carry more weight than
> those by voluntary reviewers.
> 5. The authors and reviewers communicate with each other, possibly using
> pseudonyms, on the "wall" during the time window for the review process.
> However, the authors are not allowed to submit a new version of the paper
> during the review process.
> 6. At the conclusion of the time window, the TPC mentor makes the
> accept/reject decision about the paper based on posted reviews and
> author/reviewer communication.
>
> Thanks
> Mukul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L Wood" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
> To: mukul@uwm.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:58:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems?
> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
> Before advocating the IETF process, I suggest looking at the IRTF and
> seeing how the IETF process fails in research.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mukul Goyal
> Sent: 14 August 2010 20:36
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: tccc
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems?
> (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
> Henning
>
>>>
>>> A related concern with IETF-style iterative reviewing is that the
>>> reviewer may end up contributing more than some of the authors. It
>>> is easy to imagine a conscientious reviewer going through many
>>> iterations with a student whose (co-author) advisor is preoccupied.
>
>>And if people are complaining about conference
>>submission-to-publication delays of 5 months today, they will be thrilled
>> when they see the 5-year delays from -00 I-D to RFC...
>
> There is no suggestion that the review process would extend for 5 years.
> It would still be same as before. Just that it would be open.
>
>>In general, without stating what you're trying to optimize and which
>> problem you are trying to solve (quality? pick future faculty?
>> timeliness? perception of fairness), the discussion of mechanisms seems a
>> bit besides the point.
>
> In my mind, the problem is fairness of the review process. Another
> problem, that such a model may possibly solve, is dearth of reviewers and
> submission of sub-quality papers.
>
>> To once again cite the IETF process: first, you need a requirements
>> draft.
>
> By IETF model, I was basically referring to its open review process.
>
> Thanks
> Mukul
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-15T06:51:00.001-07:00

You are right. I did not mean that authors give up IP rights. All I meant was make the paper publically available on submission as it is done after its acceptance.

Thanks
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "L Wood" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
To: mukul@uwm.edu, raysaikat@gmail.com
Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 5:19:21 AM
Subject: RE: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

Unfortunately, 'putting in the public domain' does not mean what you appear to think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

-----Original Message-----
From: Mukul Goyal [mailto:mukul@uwm.edu]
Sent: 15 August 2010 03:46
To: Saikat Ray
Cc: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng); tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu; hgs@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)
Importance: High

>You are not protecting the authors' idea from getting plagiarized.

Such protection probably does not exist in the current system either (?). This is an ethics issue. I am not aware how IEEE deals with complaints about plagiarism. IEEE must evolve a system to deal with such complaints if there is none today.

> For the papers that are rejected, it is a MUST that no one can copy
>the idea - otherwise no one will ever send a paper to that venue. This
>is the reason an unpublished paper is reviewed by a small number of
>people who agree not to use the idea of a paper that s/he reviews.

I think the proposed model will force a change in mindset. Under the proposed model, submission to a conference/journal will place a paper in the public domain, which is not so under the current model. Plain stealing of ideas would not be possible since the act of submission gives a paper a timestamp that can be used in plagiarism complaints. Other papers can refer to a submitted/rejected paper as a "work in progress", much like how an IETF internet draft is referenced.

A desirable side effect of putting all submitted papers in public domain would be that people will hesitate before submitting a half-baked paper.

Thanks
Mukul

> 1. The review process starts with the posting of the submitted paper on a public "wall" for a certain time window.
> 2. Any one can post their review of the paper on the "wall" before a certain deadline.
> 3. The paper has a TPC mentor that has power to accept/reject the paper.
> 4. TPC mentor assigns a certain number of official reviewers for the paper. However, their reviews do not necessarily carry more weight than those by voluntary reviewers.
> 5. The authors and reviewers communicate with each other, possibly using pseudonyms, on the "wall" during the time window for the review process. However, the authors are not allowed to submit a new version of the paper during the review process.
> 6. At the conclusion of the time window, the TPC mentor makes the accept/reject decision about the paper based on posted reviews and author/reviewer communication.
>
> Thanks
> Mukul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "L Wood" <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
> To: mukul@uwm.edu, hgs@cs.columbia.edu
> Cc: tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:58:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
> problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
> Before advocating the IETF process, I suggest looking at the IRTF and seeing how the IETF process fails in research.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> [mailto:tccc-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Mukul Goyal
> Sent: 14 August 2010 20:36
> To: Henning Schulzrinne
> Cc: tccc
> Subject: Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar
> problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)
>
> Henning
>
>>>
>>> A related concern with IETF-style iterative reviewing is that the
>>> reviewer may end up contributing more than some of the authors. It
>>> is easy to imagine a conscientious reviewer going through many
>>> iterations with a student whose (co-author) advisor is preoccupied.
>
>>And if people are complaining about conference
>>submission-to-publication delays of 5 months today, they will be thrilled when they see the 5-year delays from -00 I-D to RFC...
>
> There is no suggestion that the review process would extend for 5 years. It would still be same as before. Just that it would be open.
>
>>In general, without stating what you're trying to optimize and which problem you are trying to solve (quality? pick future faculty? timeliness? perception of fairness), the discussion of mechanisms seems a bit besides the point.
>
> In my mind, the problem is fairness of the review process. Another problem, that such a model may possibly solve, is dearth of reviewers and submission of sub-quality papers.
>
>> To once again cite the IETF process: first, you need a requirements draft.
>
> By IETF model, I was basically referring to its open review process.
>
> Thanks
> Mukul
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
> _______________________________________________
> Tccc mailing list
> Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
>

--
Saikat Ray
Web: http://raysaikat.googlepages.com

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc

Re: [Tccc] IETF model? Re: Different community, similar problems? (Henning Schulzrinne)

2010-08-15T03:19:00.001-07:00

Unfortunately, 'putting in the public domain' does not mean what you appear to think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

>You are not protecting the authors' idea from getting plagiarized.

A desirable side effect of putting all submitted papers in public domain would be that people will hesitate before submitting a half-baked paper.

Thanks
Mukul

--
Saikat Ray
Web: http://raysaikat.googlepages.com

_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc