Re: [port-peer-review] Deadline past, now what?
Mary, (01)
It may take some time, about a week. I will do my best. (02)
I also understand that reviewing a workshop paper,
partly because of its compact nature, may be complex.
One may need knowledge about the background of a
particular research etc. In the light of the relatively
small number of papers and the workshop character
of the meeting it might be an idea to simply skip the
whole reviewing process. (03)
What do you think? (04)
Janos (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Keeler" <mkeeler@u.washington.edu>
To: <port-peer-review@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [port-peer-review] Deadline past, now what? (06)
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Aldo de Moor wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Mary Keeler wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > No, this was not what I intended: my proposal was to divide the workload
> > by letting everybody review one paper publicly. This ensures that every
> > paper gets reviewed at least once, while encouraging the open process.
>
> Sorry, Aldo, I though you said that the "public review" was the problem,
> or so you suspected. Okay, let's do as Aldo says, and practice reviewing
> among those who have submitted papers. That way, we might get more
> inter-relating of work being done? Here's my list of papers and
> reviewers:
>
> Aldo, please review the La Barre-Dent paper,
> Kathryn and Chris, please review the Martin paper,
> Philippe, please review the Sarbo paper, and
> Janos, please review the de Moor paper?
>
> We will be waiting for your comments. --MK
>
> (07)