help annotate
Contents Next: Making Technology Work Up: Refereeing and Reliability Previous: Our Input

[Annotate][Shownotes]


The spectrum of activities that is called ``refereeing" or peer review will still be necessary, perhaps more so than ever before given the ``fire-hose" quantities of raw information the Web can deliver. Electronic journals and documents will need some mark of quality to stand out from the general stream, and traditional peer review may well play a role here, though one can imagine other ways of doing it (perhaps paying people to referee paper as some paper journals already do). Critical reviews and thoughtful summaries of forays into the stream, generated by people with judgement and taste (and a high capacity for winnowing the chaff), are also extremely useful. And internet 'accreditors' are springing up.

[Annotate][Shownotes]


This means providing software tools to make the process easier. Part of our goal for this project was to see how far we could advance without broaching this issue directly. Instead of creating software tools or mechanisms for refereeing, we provided interested and capable readers who peer reviewed somewhat in the traditional manner, except that they were known to the authors and worked directly with them to improve the papers. It is clear that this was a satisfactory way of preparing such conference proceedings but is equally clearly not feasible for most forms of publication.

omp@cecm.sfu.ca