Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:19:58PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Worse, I suspect it will make it harder.

Of course, as people have pointed out in other threads, we actually
just have no real data about this and our gut feelings about what
might happen are not a good guide.

> The RFC Series is well known, the “IRTF-Masterpice” series will be
> new and not trusted.
 
One thing we _do_ have some data about is the low regard in which the
RFC series is held in many academic contexts, because it is not
considered a peer reviewed publication and because it is often
considered a series for technical standards rather than for academic
research.  That is data that has been provided by various IRTF
participants over several years, and with few exceptions I'm unaware
of that having changed in any large degree recently.

A different series with a different publication standard might have an
easier time of getting acceptance for this role than an established
one that "everyone knows" isn't a peer-reviewed publication.
Certainly in the mists of time when I was still an aspiring academic,
it was easier to establish a new journal's reputation than it was to
rectify the reputation of a journal that was widely regarded as having
passed its peak.  Rather than speculating, however, I'd be inclined to
do some research on journal ranking in the past decade among computer
science people.  This is again something that I doubt can be done
without some investment.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]