Re: [port-peer-review] Deadline past, now what?
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Sarbo wrote: (01)
> It may take some time, about a week. I will do my best.
>
> 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.
>
> What do you think? (02)
Dear Janos, (03)
First of all, I appreciate your contribution and know that it does not fit
the usual workshop paper concept. I think it is extremely important for
you and for the others to work on making your ideas intelligible. I have
been reviewing your papers for years, in the ICCS reviewing process, and
it is always a struggle for me, even. The deeper into the "abyss of
philosophy" (as Peirce called it) we go, the more difficult the problem of
representing our ideas becomes. I think you should either do a very broad
argument to explicate the relevance of your work (based on Peirce's
theory) for PORT, as an approach to testing his theory in some specific
way, or else cut that scope down to
some one aspect of your work that can be specified as relevant to PORT in
some way. Both approaches are not particularly easy, but they are more
readily useful to others, and easier to _report_. (04)
That's the main purpose of this paper reviewing, as far as I am concerned:
to study the problems of creating useful reports. That aspect, alone,
will make or break PORT operations, in terms of reporting, tracking, and
mapping. The other two functions can be worked on with more technological
support; but reporting is a personal conduct requirement. Someday, we
might get Felix back into his ICCS work (his project is to support the
report-developing process). I hope so, because we all need such help. (05)
I only took on the review process because Galia asked me to do it--and
Eugene kindly offered to experiment with Doug's system. I think we all
realize that the granularity of that system is not what it needs to be (we
need something on the level of Lotus Notes, to start from scratch on
editing), but don't you think we can all learn something from this
process, if we can be sincerely forthright and considerate in giving
criticism and gracious and responsive in receiving it? The ICCS review
process needs this conduct as well, which could contribute significantly
to its improvement efficiency. (06)
We have the chance to consider all this, with only four papers, which
makes it very manageable. Shall we try, as best we can? But you are
right, we should continue whatever we can get started, here, at the
workshop. In Peirce's scheme, we are at the First stage of inquiry,
in this report-making process: trying to formulate coherent hypotheses to
test, deductively for their validity (in reviewing), and inductively for
their reliability in the building of PORT? --Mary (07)