Re: Irregular review procedures for IACR sponsored conferences




Greg Rose wrote:

Well, you're in good company:
http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html


Wow, this is good stuff! The first review of Dijkstra's famous Goto
paper writes:
"Publishing this would waste valuable paper: Should it be published, I
am as sure it will go uncited and unnoticed as I am confident that, 30
years from now, the goto will still be alive and well and used as
widely as it is today."

For Shannon's paper, we see "I don't understand the relevance of
discrete sources: No matter what one does, in the end, the signal will
have to be modulated using good old-fashioned vacuum tubes, so the
signal on the "'channel"' will always be analogical."
and "The only thing absolutely wrong with this paper is that it doesn't
quite "resonate" with what the research community finds exciting."

For the famous RSA paper, we see: "Further, as the authors acknowledge,
a data encryption standard already exists, supported by both the US
National Bureau of Standards and IBM, currently the largest computer
manufacturer. It is unlikely that any method that runs counter to this
standard will be adopted in any significant degree."
and
"Finally, there is the question of the application. Electronic mail on
the Arpanet is indeed a nice gizmo, but it is unlikely it will ever be
diffused outside academic circles and public
laboratories-environments in which the need to maintain
confidentiality is scarcely pressing. Laboratories with military
contracts will never communicate through the Arpanet! Either normal
people or small companies will be able to afford a VAX each, or the
market for electronic mail will remain tiny. Granted, we are seeing the
appearance of so-called microcomputers, such as the recently announced
Apple II, but their limitations are so great that neither they nor
their descendants will have the power necessary to communicate through
a network"

Lots of other good stuff here. Thanks for the link!

Scott

.