Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!dgbt!rick.doc.ca!calvin.doc.ca!csr From: csr@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick as CSR Moderator) Subject: Re: v01INF3: Submit - Submission Guidelines for comp.sources.reviewed Message-ID: <1991Apr14.025940.1747@rick.doc.ca> Summary: nothing has changed Sender: news@rick.doc.ca Nntp-Posting-Host: calvin.doc.ca Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa References: <9979: Apr1122:30:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <16705:Apr1306:15:1091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1991 02:59:40 GMT Lines: 58 In article <16705:Apr1306:15:1091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >Oh? I still don't even know what you mean by ``review.'' > >Will the reviews be published? Journals don't publish referee reports. >You claim to have modelled the process on what journals do. Your >original rules say you will publish reviews. Apparently you're waffling >internally. Yes or no? Was there any hint of this in the CFV? Nothing has changed. CSR will publish the reviews along with the sources. The only internal discussion in this area has been on whether reviewers will be allowed not to remain anonymous, and contact the authors of a submission for information or clarification. The result of that discussion is that reviewers will remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal themselves directly to the authors (which is what occurs with journal reviews). The reviews that are posted with the software will not be attributed to an individual, which is different than the policies of some journals. On the other hand, journals I have published in often take a summary of the reviews and publish that in an introductory editorial, without attributing the opinions to any one individual. Futher, the authors of a submission will have a chance to see and address the reviews before they are posted with their submission, which is not the case for these introductory editorials. >Will the reviews include lots of opinions on usability, features, etc.? >I simply assumed not, and I sure don't remember anything like that from >the original proposals. Journal reports, of course, are generally short, >and always focus on whether the article is publishable. But now I'm told >in e-mail that the c.s.r reviews may end up like magazine reviews. Yes >or no? Was there any hint of this in the CFV? The reviews should contain information on how the package was tested, why it was found to be useful, what limitations were found, etc. >I could continue, but I hope you get the point. comp.sources.reviewed >was not modelled upon journal publication except in the most superficial >sense, and after you've finished making up rules for it, it may be just >a shadow of what people expected when they voted for a group by that >name. If you dropped the pretenses of imitating journals or of obeying >the original charter, I wouldn't be so annoyed---but you also wouldn't >have a newsgroup. Nothing has changed. Using a process similar to journal articles, CSR will operate by have submissions reviewed by a group of peers. There are some journals that do publish reviews along with the submissions, and that is what will happen in CSR. -- Andrew Patrick acting as Comp.Sources.Reviewed Moderator Department of Communications, Ottawa, CANADA csr@calvin.doc.CA