|
|
In article <1156978182.145463.259480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Peter T.
Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
...
> > If the reviewer haphazardly changes some words to a synonym here and
> > there, how will the editor know he seriously looked at the rest of the
> > text and didn't miss the real problems?
>
> Do you have any idea at all what reviewers do? How would they
> "haphazardly change some words"? If the editor knew there were "real
> problems," why did they bother sending it out for review at all?
What do *you* know? In the major publications in the sciences and
mathematics, *every* article is sent out for review, unless rejected
off-hand for some clear reasons. And some reviewers find *major* problems.
The reason is that the editor does not have complete knowledge about the
particular subject, and many times does not have the adquate knowledge
at all (he is from another subject). And still papers slip through that
are sometimes even complete nonsense. And this is not only true for
publications, but also for the proceedings of conferences; even if they
are reviewed.
At one instance I have helped a reviewer, who also did not have
adequate knowledge about some particular subjects used in an
article. The article in itself would have been interesting, but
the verification of the results was outside the realm of the
knowledge of either the editor or that reviewer. The verification
was (indeed) complete nonsense, which could be easily shown when
you knew a bit about how such verification should occur.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
|
|