Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!hsdndev!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: <6787:Apr1420:38:3991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 14 Apr 91 20:38:39 GMT References: <16390:Apr1305:56:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 43 In article nolan@helios.unl.edu writes: > 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. The shock is that you would have even considered the opposite. It is exceedingly rare for a referee to give his name. Ever. And referee reports are NEVER published. Yet the original guidelines say this: : - reviewers return evaluations to moderator (based on guidelines : described an another document) : - moderator compiles evaluations and makes final publication decision : - if submission is accepted: : - moderator discusses evaluations with author : - moderator posts sources and evaluations Now I would almost believe that you didn't mean it this way: that the moderator not only compiles the evaluations, but removes all referee names from them, and that ``posts sources and evaluations'' was just a big typo for ``posts sources.'' But the guidelines go on: : Reviewers may contact you for information and clarification, Face it: this has absolutely nothing to do with journal publication. The editor is the author's sole contact; reviewers simply do not contact authors. Yet there is not a hint of the traditional anonymity in these guidelines. > There are currently two or > three alternatives to comp.sources, c.s.r is just another option. That's one of its biggest problems. > (You _do_ submit sources to the net, don't you?) Yes. I invite you---any of you---to explain what comp.sources.reviewed would have done for my latest package, volume24/yabbawhap in c.s.unix. Rich made no changes to it, so it's easy competition, right? Surely you can point out *some* advantage in your precious ``reviewing'' process. All I see is that c.s.reviewed would take weeks where Rich took days. ---Dan