Re: Open Request of Conference Reviewers
From: Joe Peschel (jpeschel_at_no.spam.org)
Date: 05/03/04
- Next message: Foo Bar: "Re: Open Request of Conference Reviewers"
- Previous message: Ticker Tom: "Re: Is there life in Chuck Lysaght's brain?"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Open Request of Conference Reviewers"
- Next in thread: Foo Bar: "Re: Open Request of Conference Reviewers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 20:01:59 -0000
Tom St Denis <tom@securescience.net> wrote in
news:IAwlc.41226$DrD1.18114@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> Just a comment I'd like to make. If you're going to comment on the poor
> grammar of a submited paper please don't write
>
> "The proofs given seem to be right and are really good explained."
>
Annoying, isn't it?
On the other hand, I've noticed that you often forget to insert a colon
before you introduce a quotation on a separate line.
>
> Now I know that I lack perspective being the author of three rejected
> papers this year but honestly it's as if they just make up stuff to
> complain about.
Have you had one accepted, yet?
>
> Most reviewer comments were like
>
> "Describe the algorithm using a top-down model".
Quot
> Which is the opposite
> of what Joan Daemen uses [for example]. It is also counter-intuitive.
>
That might be your opinion, but it's not the reviewer's. Try to do (notice
the correct spelling of "to do") what the reviewer or editor suggests.
> "You don't describe every term or symbol".
Quot
> That's what references are
> for, given that I only have 12 pages to write in I put *NEW* results in
> those 12 pages. In fact one reviewer commented about a symbol in a
> given section where I had a citation RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
C'est la vie.
>
> "Not enough justification for a new design".
Quot
> Though in my Crypto'04
> papers the designs were only examples of what the theory allows. They
> weren't meant to replace existing designs. That being said if this is
> criteria for rejection how the heck did VMPC make it into FSE'04?
Does it matter?
>
> Admitedly there were typos in my papers and certain things could have
> been written.
Then you should have corrected the typos, spelling, and re-written the
paper.
> Quite frankly I agree with a few of the comments and
> would accept rejection solely on their basis. However, if there was
> simply not enough space for the paper why not just say "I spotted a few
> things but basically we were space limited".
Quot
Editors seldom say, and a good editor would never say, "We are space
limited."
(Did you notice where I put the period? That's standard punctuation for
quotation marks, despite the nonsense you might have read and seen here.)
>
> I'd say being rejected because there simply isn't enough space is better
> than being rejected because they had to make up a series of reasons for
> rejection.
It's a bad idea to complain in a public forum about the comments of an
editor or a reviewer.
Where have you been submitting papers? Have you tried reading the papers
these reviewers have already published? Try re-reading them and
concentrate on their style, not their content. You should also pick up "The
Elements of Style." It will help you fix your punctuation and other
stylistic errors.
J
-- __________________________________________ When will Bush come to his senses? Joe Peschel D.O.E. SysWorks http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm __________________________________________
- Next message: Foo Bar: "Re: Open Request of Conference Reviewers"
- Previous message: Ticker Tom: "Re: Is there life in Chuck Lysaght's brain?"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Open Request of Conference Reviewers"
- Next in thread: Foo Bar: "Re: Open Request of Conference Reviewers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
