torsdagen den 26 april 2001 02:02 Amara Graps wrote:
> About referreeing- this author states that the large part of the expenses
> of editorial offices of journals is spent in reviewing papers. The string
> theory folks say that that referee effort is not necessary- that the bad
> papers at the Los Alamos archive are simply ignored. The papers that are
> interesting and controversial attract instant attention and thus,
> effectively _intantly_ refereed. However, the author states that, even
> with the problems of paper journal refereeing, the quality of the paper
> is always improved, which I would agree with, from my own experiences.
Maybe this is also due to the small size of the string theory community? One
things refereeing does is to filter out the mass of bad papers so that it
becomes easier to concentrate on the good ones. If I had to read every paper
that appeared on hippocampus, memory consolidation and attractor neural
network I would not have the time to do any research (I hardly have any right
now :-).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:56 MDT