Axel Polleres wrote: > e.g. pro: ... e.g. W3C specs *do* undergo a quite rigid review cycle, probably more rigid than most scientific publications do! > > I was thinking about this a bit more ... W3C review tends to improve the recs; but some academic reviews have been very very helpful to my research and somehow formed me more. For example, there was a negative review of: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-293.html (crucial for making RDF test cases work) which said it was syntactic and not semantic, which is true enough ... but that comment was well-articulated and made me think about why I thought the paper was important. I changed the top-and-tail and it got accepted next time round. But somehow the review educated me ... more so than most W3C reviews. (Except perhaps some comments from DanC). I had another negative review of my triangles work ... I think this paper: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2000/HPL-2000-72.html that led to several years of work ... But for careful and precise word-smithing, academic review has nothing on a review from a rival WG I guess I was disappointed that my paper on ARP got rejected, for similar reasons to the graph isomorphism paper, and I never got the energy together to argue that it was the important piece of work that I knew it was :) http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-292.html I think those reviewers were just wrong! (but don't we all say that sort of thing) (it's strange that I've gone back 9 or 10 years for all those examples) JeremyReceived on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 00:31:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:20 UTC