The other day I happened to take a look at the electronic version on the IEEEXplore of the first issue of the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. There, I noticed something that I think has been lost in current journal publications and that I have been planning for this blog. What I found, was constructive research discussion and argumentation. What I mean is the following: take for example one of the papers in the issue, written by no other than C. Shannon. In the same issue, along with the paper, you can find a review by 6 readers and the ensuing answers from Shannon. This is not exclusive to Shannon’s paper; in fact, every single paper in the issue is treated in the same way. The end result is an issue extremely instructive, dynamic and entertaining.
Today’s reality is that published research basically goes through a peer review process where it seems to me that most of the constructive and interactive discussion is tightly constrained within the authors-reviewers-AE interaction. In this process, some of the constructive comments eventually are incorporated but the later process of argumentation and intellectual exchange between the authors and the interested readers are all but missing. Why has this happened? Well, I don’t think I have the answer but I do think that the volume of submissions compounded with an obvious limitation on how much can fit in a particular journal issue have translated in long publication cycles and space being only available for new contributions. I believe that this process has removed perhaps one of the most important steps in creative research.
Some may say that conferences are the right venue for this kind of interaction but many of you who have been at conferences would agree that the audience of such interaction is limited to the relative (to the eventual number of readers of a paper) few attendees to a particular session and, even more, in general the discussions are limited to a tight timing which frequently forces the session chair to “move the conversation offline”, where it really becomes private.
In reality, I think that the answer is in the technology we have helped developed. We can first settle with the reality that printed journals have some inherent characteristics that make intellectual debate on any paper very difficult. At the same time, we can embrace the fact that some recent changes are certainly helpful. By this I mean the electronic management of the submission and revision process, as well as the electronic publication. With this, there is only one element missing, and this is a dynamic, flexible and public medium that facilitates and hosts the debate.
I think the answer is right here, in a blog. A blog can catalyze discussion by initially posting a report, a comment or a review of a paper. Then, the blog is indented for open discussion where everybody can post as comments their own contribution to the debate. In fact, even anonymity of the person posting a comment could be maintained since anybody can use an alias. Those hiding behind an alias to post erroneous or ill intentioned post will be sorted out as a natural process because the posts are public.
Whit this said, I will try to make the debate of DSP ideas an important component of this blog. I plan to start doing so by selecting published papers, commenting on them and opening the debate to anybody interested. As always, I welcome any suggestion with regards to what to cover or how to approach it. I’m aware that for this idea to work I need a critical mass of readers and comment posters and that achieving this is a long journey, but any long journey starts with a single step. Besides, I truly believe that this could turn into a valuable medium to advance DSP technology that is worth trying.
