Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #3957Re: Referees
From: Lee Naish
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1989 02:33
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1989 02:33
17 lines
1273 bytes
1273 bytes
I agree with Torkel Franzen's comment that most people who have submitted conference papers have experienced bad refereeing. Often programme committee members know the referees and their peculiarities and this can be taken into account somewhat. The other thing which I advise all victims of bad refereeing to look carefully at is presentation. I have had papers rejected because referees didn't understand the paper. Here are two quote from referees reports for the paper I submitted to the ICLP: "Nothing new..." "Each tools by itself does not advance the state of the art". Neither of these assertions is correct, but (in retrospect) its not that surprising the comments were made. The reason is that presentation of the new contributions did not stand out from the descriptions of previous work. Hopefully the revised version will be better.... lee
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1306@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!munnari.oz!leeReferences:
<1199@cmx.npac.syr.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au!munnari.oz!lee From: lee@munnari.oz (Lee Naish) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Referees Message-ID: <1306@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au> Date: 20 Mar 89 02:33:33 GMT References: <1199@cmx.npac.syr.edu> Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au Reply-To: lee@munmurra.UUCP (Lee Naish) Organization: University of Melbourne, Comp Sci Dept Lines: 17