elitism at NIPS

[David Tam]

I think a totally honest system has to be doubly-open, i.e., the reviewers
names have to be attached to the referee's comments.  That will hold them
accountable for what they say.  That will keep them HONEST.  If they want to
give negative critisim, let it be known who they are.

As is now, it is not an open system -- It is blind one way, and open the
other way, and that makes the system so unfair, bias, and dictatorial.

As Scott Fahlman said, it is practically impossible to make it blind,
because we all know who does what line of work.  So, if it is not blind,
make it totally open, and have a repeal process, such that if the
referee is WRONG, there is a recourse!!

That's what a democratic process is all about -- to keep the system
honest by having an OPEN process with REPEAL recourse.  A closed system
is a sure way to breed corruption and dictatorship.

This response applies to the whole scientific review process in reviewing
papers and grants in general as well as in conferences.

David C. Tam
Center for Network Neuroscience
Dept. of Biological Sciences
University of North Texas