Well, I suppose I should be happy that I got a paper accepted at this year's conference; but to be honest, the standard of reviewing leaves a lot to be desired. I suppose part of it is bad gripes for not having a paper accepted as a full paper (it was accepted as a poster, and we subsequently withdrew it) - but I still think I got a raw deal out of it.
ISSA has only two reviewers, and the second reviewer for my paper started off praising the paper with comments like "a good paper clearly describes a significant problem, provides interesting solution" and "clearly presents advances beyond the related prior work". The reviewer then criticises my ordering of chapters and suggests a more traditional security paper layout where the security analysis is done before the design. I had it the other way round, since my new design was the subject of the paper, and I felt that a security analysis before the design was pointless ... but anyway. And then, the reviewer comments: "Do not accept the paper in the present format. To present as a paper authors should improve the manuscript", and rejects the paper! So it seems, that the entire paper was rejected because the reviewer did not like my layout :/
But overall, the review process was rather short and abrupt - only two reviewers, contributing about a page of review in total. This is clearly not to the standard that is seen at more prestigious conferences - I have had over 6 pages of review in most of the papers I have submitted to ACM or IFIP-Sec. And the reviewers' knowledge of the subject under review is also a bit suspect at times. And this seems to be the problem with most SA conferences - the review process is too shallow and I think that, ultimately, quality really suffers.
No comments:
Post a Comment