Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!hoss!nolan From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan) Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed Message-ID: Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln References: <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> <9418: Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <16390:Apr1305:56:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 13 Apr 91 18:15:23 GMT Lines: 52 brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Oh, really? I suppose that the difference between unpublished, anonymous >reviews and published, credited reviews is ``purely administrative''? >I didn't vote for the group, so I'm not going to feel cheated >if it ends up wildly different from the original proposals. >What I do mind is that you're pretending to have modelled the process on >journal publication. I wonder how many of the comp.sources.reviewed >reviewers have ever been referees, let alone editors, of professional or >academic journals---especially since the current c.s.r rules have almost >nothing in common with those of any established publication. Well, Dan, I have served as a referee for a professional journal, have served as the graduate assistant for an editor of a professional journal, have served as the editor for a publication (not a refereed one, though), and have also written reviews of software which were published in the computer trade papers under my byline. I've written articles for refereed publications which have been subjected to the reviewing process. I have also served as a beta tester for computer software. I have also followed the c.s.r group from the first tentative CFD some six months or so ago. Incidentally, that first post called for the creation of a reviewing process like that used for professional journals, so the insistence of anonymity for those reviewers who desire it should not come as much of a shock. Personally, as a reviewer for c.s.r, I don't feel that anonymity is much of an issue for me, and I've said as much in the discussion within the c.s.r reviewers on the drafting of the guidelines. It may well be that after the group is created it is discovered that anonymity is a non-issue. The guidelines (as I interpret them) permit individual reviewers to choose whether or not they desire to remain anonymous. I think the problem here is that the c.s.r discussion becamed muddled with that concerning Rich Saltz and the periodic comp.sources delays. I really don't want to rekindle that flame feud, and I see c.s.r as an alternative means of code distribution, not as a replacement. There are currently two or three alternatives to comp.sources, c.s.r is just another option. I don't have a copy of the guide for reviewers for a refereed periodical handy at present, but I could lay my hands on one if necessary. As I recall them, though, they seem to have the same spirit as c.s.r, although the process is different because of the distribution system. What do you find different that isn't related to the distribution system? So you didn't vote for c.s.r. Big deal. You lost. If you don't want to participate in it, unsubscribe to the group and don't submit any sources to it. (You _do_ submit sources to the net, don't you?) ------- Michael Nolan This is my .sig Internet: nolan@helios.unl.edu T*His_iS#MY%.SIg oN DrUGs!@%#@% UUCP: tssi!nolan Any questions?