Re: A quote concerning randomness

From: Douglas A. Gwyn (DAGwyn_at_null.net)
Date: 10/14/04


Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:13:48 GMT

Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> On the assumption that the editors are responsible (don't
> suppress letters from readers with justified reasons to
> criticize), the absence of letters means absence of critics
> (including errors) in the papers published. Isn't that right?

No, it's not even close to right. In any area where I have
substantial expertise, I've been able to find at least one
error in almost any detailed technical paper. What one
hopes for is that the error does not affect the overall
thread of the article. Sometimes errata are published
(usually it takes several issues to catch up with the
editorial process), sometimes new articles correct errors,
sometimes, the error isn't worth bothering to correct since
everybody who needs to worry about it is expected to be
able to cope with it on their own. Sometimes, nobody
bothers to read the article in the first place..



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Attn Toad....Lindsay Playboy pix!
    ... I definitely wasn't expecting it to be ... conspicuous in its absence. ... You wonder if the editors are going over it ... saying, "I keep feeling like we forgot something." ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Attn Toad....Lindsay Playboy pix!
    ... conspicuous in its absence. ... You wonder if the editors are going over it saying, "I keep feeling like we forgot something." ...
    (rec.music.gdead)