home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!kumard
- From: kumard@acsu.buffalo.edu (Deepak Kumar)
- Newsgroups: comp.ai
- Subject: Re: New Problems in IJCAI Reviewing (long)
- Message-ID: <C17wpA.6H9@acsu.buffalo.edu>
- Date: 21 Jan 93 18:58:22 GMT
- References: <memo.881052@cix.compulink.co.uk> <C17opI.JqJ@gabriel.keele.ac.uk>
- Sender: nntp@acsu.buffalo.edu
- Organization: UB
- Lines: 29
- Nntp-Posting-Host: sybil.cs.buffalo.edu
-
- Lots of discussion about pros and cons of anonymous refereeing of
- papers etc.....deleted.
-
- The basic assumption underlying the whole thread is that no matter
- what referees have been, are, and will always be biased towards/against
- certain submissions for all kinds of reasons.
-
- I don't think anyone has mentioned this but I think a lot of good
- papers don't get accepted merely because the refereeing was delegated
- to the `wrong' referees...I often get papers to review in areas
- I have no expertise in....(I send them back immediately). Rather
- than indulge in an anonymous review process I'd like to see the PC
- spend more time ensuring that papers get refereed by appropriate peers.
-
- Back to the thread...
- If only the referees would `resolve to fairer, ethical practice'
- (it isn't too late, we're still in the month of january :-))
- and combined with the fact that every submission is refereed
- by at least 3 presumably `disparate' referees...most of the problems
- would be solved. Or is it WAY out of line to ask `fairness and
- objectivity' from our esteemed members of the research community?????
- I hope the answer is NO.
-
- Deepak.
-
- --
- I'm not a teacher but I play one at school.
- kumard@cs.buffalo.EDU Deepak Kumar, Department of Comp. Sc.
- kumard%cs.buffalo.edu@ubvm.bitnet 226 Bell Hall, SUNY@Buffalo, NY 14260.
-