Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed Message-ID: <6338:Apr1420:14:1691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 14 Apr 91 20:14:16 GMT References: <16390:Apr1305:56:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.190013.9991@athena.mit.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 21 In article <1991Apr14.190013.9991@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > It seems to me that there is a fatal flaw in Dan's argument. It is very > unlikely that, as a whole, the people who voted for the group know more about > the "real" journal review process than the moderator and reviewers. [ ... ] > My impression is that Mr. Bernstein seems to be saying that the people who > voted for the group were not smart enough to understand what they were voting > for. I find that assertion offensive. No. In fact, it is you, Mr. Kamens, who have explicitly made such an assertion. I find it rather funny that you can expose a ``fatal flaw'' in my argument by making a claim which, you later insist, is offensive. Even if everyone in the world knew everything about journal publication, it wouldn't have a whole lot to do with the group. The previously posted guidelines for comp.sources.reviewed have very little in common with journal publication except the general concept of a reviewer/referee. Perhaps they will change radically, but that would prove that the reviewers are failing to uphold their responsibility to the voters. ---Dan