Re: [port-peer-review] Deadline past, now what?
Gary (and others), we all do the best we can, and it takes time to make
any new habits possible. As I have said the ICCS conference reviewing is
always a terrible struggle to get finished (as Uta, Bill, and I have
experienced), so this approach (with everyone asked to read all papers)
was bound to be even more difficult. Aldo has suggested that I assign
everyone a paper or two, anonymously. If that appeals to you, I will be
glad to do so. But I have never been happy with the ICCS review process
(of that sort), because we all really need dialogue for the purpose of
clarifying the ideas represented--a true improvement process. Most of the
papers submitted for the workshop need very little textual clarification,
but any that is done will help (both the author's evolution of ideas, and
the readers' grasp of them). I will contact the authors, individually, to
encourage them. Somehow, we must all come to the perspective that what we
are trying to do will not be clear until all contributions are clarified
and related to one another at least nominally. Authors might review their
work with the other papers in mind? ICCS, at large, suffers from not
being able to make clear any relations among projects, except for the
vaguely standard formalisms (techniques) used. Let's work on that, if we
can? --MK (01)