July 2013: Editor Message

By: 
Dina Papagiannaki
Appears in: 
CCR July 2013
It is hard to believe it is already July. July marks a few milestones: i) schools are over, ii) most of the paper submission deadlines for the year are behind us, iii) a lot, but not all, of the reviewing duty has been accomplished. July also marks another milestone for CCR and myself: the longest CCR issue I have had the pleasure to edit this year! This issue of CCR features 15 papers in total: 7 technical papers, and 8 editorials. The technical papers cover the areas of Internet measurement, routing, privacy, content
delivery, as well as data center networks.  
 
The editorial zone features the report on the workshop of Internet economics, and the workshop on active Internet measurements that took place in early 2013. It also features position papers that regard empirical Internet measurement, community networks, the use of recommendation engines in content delivery, and censorship on the Internet. I found every single one of them thought provoking, and with the potential to initiate discussion in our community. Finally, we have two slightly more unusual editorial notes. The first one describes the experience of
the CoNEXT 2012 Internet chairs, and the way they found to enable flawless connectivity despite only having access to residential grade equipment. The second one focuses on the criticism that we often portray as a community in our major conferences, in particular SIGCOMM, and suggests a number of directions conference organizers could take.
 
This last editorial has made me think a little more about my experience as an author, reviewer, and TPC member in the past 15 years of my career. It quotes Jeffrey Naughton’s keynote at ICDE 2010 and his statement about the Computer Science community - “Funding agencies believe us when we say we suck.”. 
 
Being on a TPC, one actually realizes that criticism is something that we naturally do as a community - not personal. Being an author, who has never been on a TPC, however, makes this process far more personal. I still remember the days when each one of my papers was prepared to what I considered perfection and sent into the “abyss”, sometimes with a positive, and others with a negative response. I also do remember the disappointment of my first rejection. Some perspective on the process could possibly be of interest.