Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!munnari.oz!lee
From: lee@munnari.oz (Lee Naish)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Referees
Message-ID: <1306@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au>
Date: 20 Mar 89 02:33:33 GMT
References: <1199@cmx.npac.syr.edu>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Reply-To: lee@munmurra.UUCP (Lee Naish)
Organization: University of Melbourne, Comp Sci Dept
Lines: 17

I agree with Torkel Franzen's comment that most people who have
submitted conference papers have experienced bad refereeing.  Often
programme committee members know the referees and their peculiarities
and this can be taken into account somewhat.

The other thing which I advise all victims of bad refereeing to look
carefully at is presentation.  I have had papers rejected because
referees didn't understand the paper.  Here are two quote from referees
reports for the paper I submitted to the ICLP:
"Nothing new..."
"Each tools by itself does not advance the state of the art".
Neither of these assertions is correct, but (in retrospect) its not that
surprising the comments were made.  The reason is that presentation of
the new contributions did not stand out from the descriptions of previous
work.  Hopefully the revised version will be better....

	lee