Looking over Journal of Cryptology, they appear to be a theory journal. So an attack on an implementation, based on hardware probably doesn't interest them as much.
They publish lots of papers about side channel attacks, including very hardware based ones like power consumption analysis.
It just happened that "leak information into microarchitectural state and then retrieve it" didn't exist as a subfield until my work (and the OST work a few weeks behind mine).
In 2012 Mochizuki claimed to have proved the abc conjecture by developing a new branch of mathematics. He was a respected mathematician, but the theories he had developed were so complex no one could determine if he was correct. It took six years until two number theorists dissected the proof and found a fatal flaw in it.
Mochizuki and a group of mathematicians still claim that Stix and Scholze didn't actually identify a flaw and his proof was published in a journal (where Mochizuki is the chief editor and the reviewers were people from Mochizuki's instituion). I think most of the math community don't believe his proof although Mochizuki and some others claim it's valid.
So you get a few benefits from being a reviewer but it's pretty limited.
One benefit is that you generally get free access to the journal in question for a month or two while you are reviewing. So if you are regularly reviewing papers, you get free access to that journal. If you are part of a big org you probably already have access but it is a nice little benefit for people outside big academic orgs.
You can also include it on your CV if you want and there are a variety of small recognitions you can get for doing it.
And some publishers will also give you a fairly substantial discount (25+%) on texts purchased through that publisher as well as similarly substantial discounts on publishing and editing services provided by the publisher. Sage does this for example and their services include things like translation services, editing, infographic & artwork design, and animating video summaries for papers. They seem like they are quite nice services so getting discounts on them would probably be a good selling point for some people.
Another reason is just because you'd be reading the journal anyways and you don't mind doing a deep dive every once in a while on a random paper in your field. This reason is mostly a "well why not I'm already spending the time" kind of reason but it's a decent justification.
And the main reason is just because it's kind of expected of a lot of PhDs and being good at reviewing is a useful skill to have, especially if you are going to eventually be someone else's advisor or just in general if you want to be able to effectively critique your own works and the works of those around you. Being a reviewer for at least some times means you know the system and you can help keep your own papers and the papers of your colleagues from getting rejected for dumb reasons or oversights.
It's part of the culture. I write a paper. I want to get it published. Journals need someone to review it. If I refuse to peer review others' papers, then in principle people may refuse to review mine and we both lose.
Sure, it'd be nice if publishers passed some of the profits to both authors and reviewers, but that would create other perverse incentives.
> and what real care do they take when they are doing it for free?
Not much. They sometimes sit on it for months before reviewing it.
Pardon my ignorance, I’m very much not an academic, but what the heck do the publishers bring to the table here? Suppose you just published your paper on a free site, and solicited your peer reviewers to annotate a Google Doc or whatever? I can see why journals and their publishers mattered 50 years ago when they were needed to physically publish the information by printing it on paper and distributing it. But I don’t get it now. Why does anyone gift them their papers? To me this sounds like a store where the customers bring in all the merchandise and give it to the store, who then sells it back to other customers. In other words, crazy.
> but what the heck do the publishers bring to the table here?
Name recognition. Top journals are harder to publish into - you (supposedly) need a higher impact piece of work to get published in it.
Same idea with universities. The top ranked universities don't necessarily give you a better education. But that certificate sure helps.
> But I don’t get it now. Why does anyone gift them their papers?
Same answer as above. You're a researcher who is trying to get tenure. You published in Nature. Good chance you'll get tenure. You published on your own site and have a Google Doc of reviewer feedback? Anyone can create that. You won't get tenure.
At least in my field, being on the program committee for top conferences is prestigious and can help with promotion, increases your visibility and profile in the community, is a good networking opportunity with other experts in the field, and for early career researchers provides a valuable perspective on how other experienced researchers evaluate research. The latter is less important in cases where conferences publish all reviews.
> At some point, the people who tent to leave a mess in Waymos just... won't be allowed to ride in Waymos any more.
This would reductively mean a more effective form of punishing vandalism, which would in of itself be a slight net good overall.
In the ideal case, there would be a recompense program to pay for the damages made + extra, in return for being able to ride them again.
Meta-point: This discussion has significant overlap with busses/trains/public transportation. How we deal with bad actors in that space would translate well into this space.
At some point, the people who tent to leave a mess in Waymos just... won't be allowed to ride in Waymos any more.
Starting to sound a bit like a credit system or some other dystopian shit show. You do something dumb, drunk while in college and you're cut off...sounds amazing.
No, the point was that billing the damage to the malicious actor in question will prevent damage.
But for some people, a fine is just the cost of doing the thing. And for every bad actor you ban, there's another bad actor willing to take their place.
They'll accept cash if you fork out a $300 deposit, and the people who are likely to both pay cash and trash a room rarely have that much extra money on hand.
A friend of mine works night audit in a rough part of the valley. As soon as he says the magic words 'we require a major credit card or a $300 deposit', they immediately hang up.
This heavily depends on the country, plenty of places in the US and other credit-card-loving countries are credit (and specifically credit, NOT debit) card only for this reason. Plenty of tourists from countries where such cards aren't as popular get bitten by this.
> Some taxis have that too. Where does it get them?
The keyword there being "some". If an account is tied to the person, recourse for negligent/malicious behavior can be applied, but that only works if there's an account to add the penalty to.
On Waymo's part, requiring an account to use the service would be in the benefit of the service as a whole.
Plenty of things can be a “real condition” without measurable physical sources. That’s just practical/pragmatic medicine. Ala chronic fatigue syndrome.
The difference between those and more fringe stuff like chronic Lyme disease is much more of a grey area than most doctors would ever admit publicly without a huge amount of well organized backlash that largely can be summarized on “you just don’t care about sick people”. So the alternative is much more palatable to just to quietly treat them, play the game by kicking the can and deferring with “I hope science will one day advance to finding a real cause”. Wikipedia is always going to play this same game by the nature of it being a public forum attempting to appease a wide audience, it’s almost always going to play it safe.
Ultimately these are people, for the most part, who are legitimately unwell and may legitimately need care regardless, but that doesn’t make it the same as having cancer or HIV. Nor does it mean going to a doctor will give you the medicine you need.
