At 07:07 AM 11/18/2004 +0000, Charles Matthews wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote
I don't think any of the variant systems
that
have been proposed include any sort of deadline or schedule for reviewing
specific articles.
Given the number of ideas thrown around, I'd have to concede the point to
anyone who follows the details with greater interest than I. But I think
it's a bit naive to assume there would be no time pressure. For example,
any subsequent publishing venture would probably take reviewed articles as
the base line; and publishers, IMX, are forever setting inconvenient (for
others) deadlines.
If we don't meet the deadlines these hypothetical publishers want us to,
will they dock our pay?
I think you're jumping a few steps ahead and making a lot of assumptions
here. Coming up with ways to be more confident in the quality of our
articles is a good thing all on its own, even when considered completely
independently of any paper publishing goals. We can try out ways to do that
without having to give any consideration to whether it makes it easier for
publishers to come up with a printable version.