[melbourne-pug] Melbourne Community
mauriceling at acm.org
Wed Apr 12 13:55:34 CEST 2006
>>This Melbourne Python Users' Bulletin (or letters) may be a collection
>>of published case studies or personal experiences and tutorial-like
>>articles. From an academic perspective, I believe that at least the
>>technical contents needs to be correct before "publishing", so even
>>though it is not a real academic journal, some forms of "technical
>>peer-reviewing" needs to take place.
>Are you suggesting a mail-list review?
I am not familiar with the dynamics of mail-list review. Do you mean
that the articles or codes (in the form of letters) received by the
Editor be sent to this list for group reviewing?
>Just thinking out loud, I reckon peer review is brilliant in terms of
>you guys telling me where I'm going wrong when I show you what I'm
>doing. That is because my objective (not necessarily anyone else's) is
>to learn and improve my skills in a much more immediate time frame than
>would be possible within any formal or academic peer review situation.
In academic settings, usually the real review takes 2 hours but the
paper can take weeks collecting dust on the reviewer's table.
Yes, a group review or mail-list review (as I understood it) will be
beneficial for learning. But I am also concerned about time needed for a
fruitful debate in this list. If we are going down this path, can I
suggest that the Editor makes the final remarks in 7 calendar days from
1st post to this list? If anyone had missed out on the reviewing but
strongly feels about the finalized article, please submit another article.
I feel that I have to declare myself here. I vote strongly in favour of
technical peer-review because I arise from the academia. For me, the
goal is to produce peer-reviewed publications, which translates to more
research funds (buying better books). Even if we use a mail-list
peer-review model, we just state precisely how we work, and with proper
front matter to the e-zine (listing the reviewers and with ISSN), it is
usually accepted by the university as peer-reviewed articles.
Such publications will matter for undergraduates trying to get scholarships.
On the research fund side, let me illustrate an example. The Australian
Undergraduate Students' Computing Conference (AUSCC) started in 2003 in
Melbourne University, and although we did not reject any papers
(revisions yes, there wasn't any papers that is truely unreadable or
technically flawed to be rejected) but with proper front matter with
reviewers' names and an ISBN, it was accepted as a peer-reviewed
publication and my department received 350 for the paper I published in
that conference then.
>There is definitely a niche for polished peer reviewed stuff. Just last
>night I placed an order on Amazon for O'Reilly's Python Cookbook. The
>cred of the reviewers looks impeccable to me and that is what persuaded
>me to spend hard-earned money. Even so, I also visit the ASPN website
>for recipes because I see peer review debate and commentary there as well.
By peer reviewing, I least I know those codes work as intended (and did
not mix up standard deviation with variance).
>I think I'm saying we sacrifice bandwidth in the knowledge transfer game
>when we add formality. IMHO, absolute best and broadest knowledge
>transfer bandwidth is face-to-face discussion with whiteboards on hand.
>Next best is either Professor Google or a mail list like this. The
>narrowest knowledge transfer bandwidth is to buy and read a book. I'm
>not saying anything about the quality of the knowledge - just the speed
>and relevance at the time.
>A peer reviewed e-zine would be great. The peer review would be better
>provided people got in and criticised with gusto. Maybe Crocker's Rules
>should apply (:
I support with gusto that peer-reviewed e-zine will be great but I do
feel that Crocker's Rules do breed arrogance to a certain extend.
From some of the rejections I get for my paper submissions, it is
obvious that the reviewers do not understand my work at all. And I got
rejected on the basis of my paper was poorly written (no explanations)
and my maths symbols are not nice!!!
>>I've also just did an initial proposal to Firebird Foundation about
>>starting a peer-reviewed journal. (Let's talk about this off-list if you
>Don't be shy - I would be more comfortable being included (or lurking)
>in the discussion.
>Run with it ...
I think it will be far to off-topic to discuss starting a peer-reviewed
Firebird Journal in a Python list. :)
More information about the melbourne-pug