I think corresponding with the authors is the best approach. It is too late
to change the article since it's already in press. The authors may choose
to publish a comment clarifying the results. If Martin is still
dissatisfied with their response, perhaps he might submit a comment to the
journal (author instructions
here<http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/721195/authorinstructions>
).
I feel there are some additional issues in this paper, even beyond the
possible benchmark errors. There are major or minor inaccuracies in almost
every section that mentions Octave. I agree that they should have been
using Octave 3.2.x, which was available well before the January submission
date listed on the paper. I don't know how they didn't find the
documentation website, and anyway, I don't know why "help" and "lookfor"
don't qualify as online documentation and indexing, or why they are
considered "not user-friendly." They neglected Java support and the
packages available via Octave-Forge. I do wish they would make their
methodology (especially their code) public so it can be inspected. And I
hope they compared the numerical results of the different products to make
sure their code was correct.
But to put my concerns in the proper context, I think it's an excellent idea
for a paper, and I'm glad they pursued it. It's just the kind of reference
that is needed for scientists and others choosing a computational package.
I hope they are willing to work through the issues being raised here.
Joe V.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Juan Pablo Carbajal <carba...@ifi.uzh.ch>wrote:
> Martin,
>
> I agree with your comments. If the numbers are wrong there should be a
> proper response and correction. This is why I sent an e-mail to the
> author. Lets see how they react.
>
> JPi
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Martin Helm <mar...@mhelm.de> wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 4. September 2010, 18:50:40 schrieb Martin Helm:
> >> (but I am of course not a community representative but a private
> >> person who is concerned about incorrect benchmarks and will ask that not
> >> on behalf my own).
> > Sorry a typo:
> > This last part should of course be:
> > "not on behalf the community but on my own"
> >
> > - Martin
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
