🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nolan.671566523@helios> nolan@helios.unl.edu writes:
> Incidentally, that first post called for the creation of a reviewing
> process like that used for professional journals, so the insistence of
> anonymity for those reviewers who desire it should not come as much of
> a shock.

The shock is that you would have even considered the opposite. It is
exceedingly rare for a referee to give his name. Ever. And referee
reports are NEVER published. Yet the original guidelines say this:

: - reviewers return evaluations to moderator (based on guidelines
:   described an another document)
: - moderator compiles evaluations and makes final publication decision
: - if submission is accepted:
: 	- moderator discusses evaluations with author
: 	- moderator posts sources and evaluations

Now I would almost believe that you didn't mean it this way: that the
moderator not only compiles the evaluations, but removes all referee
names from them, and that ``posts sources and evaluations'' was just a
big typo for ``posts sources.'' But the guidelines go on:

: Reviewers may contact you for information and clarification,

Face it: this has absolutely nothing to do with journal publication.
The editor is the author's sole contact; reviewers simply do not contact
authors. Yet there is not a hint of the traditional anonymity in these
guidelines.

> There are currently two or
> three alternatives to comp.sources, c.s.r is just another option.  

That's one of its biggest problems.

> (You _do_ submit sources to the net, don't you?)

Yes. I invite you---any of you---to explain what comp.sources.reviewed
would have done for my latest package, volume24/yabbawhap in c.s.unix.
Rich made no changes to it, so it's easy competition, right? Surely you
can point out *some* advantage in your precious ``reviewing'' process.
All I see is that c.s.reviewed would take weeks where Rich took days.

---Dan