Post

Felladonna
@langsec.hacker.gf

like ok I understand that I am way more devoted to peer review than even the average academic, but crucially the process has not actually done me wrong yet sometimes reviewer 2 really does have a point! this probably sounds credentialist af but istg it's about orthopraxy, not orthocredentiality

Felladonna@langsec.hacker.gf

ieee is really chill to work with and they do a stellar job of logistics, which is nice because we don't need a staff svengali, which is absolutely how nate soares portrays himself and damn that weirds me out it's also always weirded me out how blithely disinterested in peer review they all are

Felladonna
@langsec.hacker.gf

it is just alien to me that the thought leaders of a field with this degree of ambition over the direction of at this point trillions in investment are so allergic to peer review, and the only way I can make sense of it is to conclude that, as I've observed before, they're not serious people

0 reposts6 likes

Felladonna
@langsec.hacker.gf

crucially, peer review is not a credential-issuing/denying process. it is an evidence-producing process. it produces evidence of observed strengths and deficits of a work

Felladonna
@langsec.hacker.gf

and at least at my workshop, we use a double-blind submission process to reduce the likelihood of traits external to the work (name, gender, that sort of thing) influencing a reviewer it requires integrity and professionalism, but it's a process that has produced 12 years of results I'm proud of