On Monday, June 3, 2013 5:36:22 PM UTC-4, Rob Beezer wrote: > > On Monday, June 3, 2013 11:16:54 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote: >> >> >> Intriguing idea. I think that you'd definitely need a real "editorial >> board", with at least blind review (probably double-blind is unrealistic?). >> > > As a referee of articles for a popular journal published by a large > mathematical society, I was polled by an editor about how I felt about > their process moving to blind reviews. I emphatically stated that part of > the appeal of contributing to Sage (rather than say writing research > articles) included that reviews were *not* blind, and the > positive-review/needs-work dichotomy of feedback. > > That is true in this context, you are right - though I wonder if someone completely "new to the community" wanted to contribute something. I still think the "real editorial board" makes sense.
(I do think that for research journals things are different; it really impacts interactions, and some mathematicians feel that moving to double blind would help a lot with respect to having different standards for different famousness levels. A non-research journal I have reviewed for tries to do double-blind as often as possible.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
