On 10/07/2014 05:23 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[email protected]> writes:
On 10/06/2014 11:00 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[email protected]> writes:
On 10/06/2014 09:32 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <[email protected]> writes:
Who cares what the authors intend? I mean, they are not reading the
paper, are they?
For reviewing, what the authors intend is extremely important. Having
different rendering of the paper interfere with the authors' message is
something that should be avoided at all costs.
Really? So, for example, you think that a reviewer with impared vision
should, for example, be forced to review a paper using the authors
rendering, regardless of whether they can read it or not?
No, but this is not what I was talking about. I was talking about
interfering with the authors' message via changes from the rendering
that the authors' set up.
It *is* exactly what you are talking about.
Well, maybe I was not being clear, but I thought that I was talking about
rendering changes interfering with comprehension of the authors' intent.
And if only you had a definition of "rendering changes that interfere
with authors intent" as opposed to just "rendering changes".
I can guarantee that rendering a paper to speech WILL change at least
some of the authors intent because, for example, figures will not
reproduce. You state that this should be avoided at all costs.
I think this is wrong. There are many reasons to change rendering. That
should be the readers choice.
Phil
I think that for reviewing the authors should be able to dictate how their
submission looks, within the bounds of the submission requirements. If the
reviewer wants, or needs, to change the way a submission is presented then it
is up to the reviewer to ensure that their review is not coloured by this change.
When I review papers I routinely point out presentation problems. Sometimes I
take into account presentation problems when I evaluate papers. However, I
try very hard to evaluate the submission based on what the authors submitted,
not on any changes that I made to the submission. For example, I will point
out problems with using colours in graphs, but I will evaluate the paper based
on the coloured version of the graphs, not a black and white version.
However, if the authors submitted low-resolution figures and something is
missing because of this, then I feel free to take this into account in my
evaluation.
In a situation where I do not know what presentation the authors wanted, for
example if explicit line breaks and indentation are sometimes preserved, but
not always, the evaluation of submissions can become very much harder.
peter
