Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!hoss!nolan
From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed
Message-ID: <nolan.671566523@helios>
Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer)
Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
References: <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> <9418: Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <scs.671464069@hela.iti.org> <16390:Apr1305:56:2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 91 18:15:23 GMT
Lines: 52

brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>Oh, really? I suppose that the difference between unpublished, anonymous
>reviews and published, credited reviews is ``purely administrative''?

>I didn't vote for the group, so I'm not going to feel cheated
>if it ends up wildly different from the original proposals.

>What I do mind is that you're pretending to have modelled the process on
>journal publication. I wonder how many of the comp.sources.reviewed
>reviewers have ever been referees, let alone editors, of professional or
>academic journals---especially since the current c.s.r rules have almost
>nothing in common with those of any established publication.

Well, Dan, I have served as a referee for a professional journal, have
served as the graduate assistant for an editor of a professional journal,
have served as the editor for a publication (not a refereed one, though),
and have also written reviews of software which were published in 
the computer trade papers under my byline.  I've written articles for
refereed publications which have been subjected to the reviewing process.
I have also served as a beta tester for computer software.  I have also 
followed the c.s.r group from the first tentative CFD some six months or so ago.

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.  Personally, as a reviewer for c.s.r,  I don't feel that anonymity is
much of an issue for me, and I've said as much in the discussion within
the c.s.r reviewers on the drafting of the guidelines.  It may well be that
after the group is created it is discovered that anonymity is a non-issue.
The guidelines (as I interpret them) permit individual reviewers to choose
whether or not they desire to remain anonymous.

I think the problem here is that the c.s.r discussion becamed muddled with that
concerning Rich Saltz and the periodic comp.sources delays.  I really don't
want to rekindle that flame feud, and I see c.s.r as an alternative means
of code distribution, not as a replacement.  There are currently two or
three alternatives to comp.sources, c.s.r is just another option.  

I don't have a copy of the guide for reviewers for a refereed periodical
handy at present, but I could lay my hands on one if necessary.  As I
recall them, though, they seem to have the same spirit as c.s.r, although
the process is different because of the distribution system.  What do you
find different that isn't related to the distribution system?

So you didn't vote for c.s.r.  Big deal.  You lost.  If you don't want to
participate in it, unsubscribe to the group and don't submit any sources
to it.  (You _do_ submit sources to the net, don't you?)
-------
Michael Nolan                               This is my .sig
Internet:  nolan@helios.unl.edu             T*His_iS#MY%.SIg oN DrUGs!@%#@%
UUCP:      tssi!nolan                       Any questions?
