Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!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: <12178:Apr1512:46:5091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 15 Apr 91 12:46:50 GMT
References: <1991Apr14.190013.9991@athena.mit.edu> <6338:Apr1420:14:1691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.210953.12913@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: IR
Lines: 27

In article <1991Apr14.210953.12913@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
>   You have claimed that the reviewers apparently don't know how "real"
> journals work.

I asked whether any of them did because I didn't see any evidence at
that point that they did. Apparently some of them do; I hope they have a
hand in fixing the guidelines.

>   Do you have some evidence to back up your claim that people are not getting
> what they expected to get?  If so, could you perhaps present it to us?

Sure. Journals do A. The current guidelines say B. You're considering
changing the guidelines to A. There is absolutely no way that all the
voters can be getting what they expected, unless they expected both A
and B. I find it highly likely that some of the voters would be (e.g.)
as shocked by the idea of publishing reviews as I was, if not more.

Now it could be that people expected A, and you're going to end up with
A, and B was just a big mistake. In that case I'm justified for flaming
it, right?

By the way, I didn't claim at first that people are not getting what
they expected to get. I said that they *may* get something only loosely
correlated with what they voted for. This is obviously true for any
group that considers drastic changes after the vote.

---Dan