[Computational Complexity] Referees'''' reports
- A commenter a LOOOOONG time ago left the following:
Tell me, Gasarch, how in the world do you get your papers published when you consistently skip the apostrophe in it's and that's? Do referees notice these things anymore, or are you simply careless in blogs. <\blockquotes>
This commenter unintentionally raised some good questions:
- Do referees notice these things anymore... This indicates that there was a time when referees were real referees, and men were real men, and women were real women, and little blue fuzzballs from alpha-8 were real little blue fuzzballs from alpha-8. Was there such a time? Or is this is really case of nostalgia for a time that never was? If anything I think referees are more demanding of changes then in a past time since they know that with word processors such changes are easy to make.
- What should referees look for? Ian Parberry has a good paper on this that is linked to from our website. Informally, here is what I think the order should be (1) Are the results true/important/interesting?` (2) Are they well presented? See next item for expansion on (2).
- Being well presented also has a priority ordering: (1) Are the results well motivated? (2) Are the proofs presented in a way that the reader can see the intuition? (3) Grammar. (4) Spelling. (5) Apostrophes.
- A referee's job is not just to accept or reject a paper. Its also to offer advice on a paper to make it better
Posted By GASARCH to Computational Complexity at 1/28/2010 09:09:00 AM