Peer Review
I don&#x27;t consider myself an expert in computer networks research but i still have 10 accepted (and ~20 rejected) papers with ~100 citations in journals, conferences and workshops within my 3 years working on R&amp;D. Hence my comments below derive from my non-academical and more development-oriented background.<p>Peer review is completely broken nowadays for the following reasons:<p>-Reviewers might not have relevant expertise to judge whether a paper is good or not. I am not talking about top-notch conferences, mainly lower-tier ones and workshops. I have seen a lot of professors pushing paper reviews to their PhDs, or even students. I was also invited to review a paper as soon as i submitted my first one (and it was rejected btw)! In another workshop i was invited to review papers just because i was a colleague of one of the organisers.<p>-Old-school academia. This might not apply to all fields or all academia, but i have had good papers rejected because they didn&#x27;t have a lot of math or simulations! My paper was examining an actual implementation of an SDN (software defined networking) protocol or a strategy with platforms and orchestrators which require weeks to setup and implement (Opendaylight, Openstack, OpenMANO, etc) with actual experiments on real users&#x27; video activity, yet to be rejected because i didn&#x27;t provide any simulation. Jeez, novelty does not come only from theory, somebody has to implement and test these things in actual machines..<p>-Politics. I won&#x27;t say much on this aspect, other than a colleague of mine had 1000 citations within the same time just because there was a &quot;mafia&quot; (not my words but his) of professors, lecturers, PhDs reviewing and accepting all the group&#x27;s papers because they were overloading them with each other&#x27;s references and co-inviting them to each other&#x27;s conferences and workshops.