close this bookVolume 1: No. 09
View the documentNews -- Sony Mini Disc
View the documentNews -- KnowledgeWare
View the documentOpportunities -- AI/CS jobs
View the documentOpportunities -- new research labs
View the documentInformation -- research thesaurus; machine translation; Informix
View the documentWorkshops -- ICIS workshop and journal; TEI text encoding
View the documentTools -- Collate
View the documentDiscussion -- SBIR
View the documentDiscussion -- corporate funding
View the documentQuery -- peer review
View the documentDiscussion -- feudal analogies

Mike Schwartz (schwartz@latour.colorado.edu) suggests that we discuss peer review of publications and proposals. Is the process as arbitrary as it seems? For highly selective conferences, only the most narrowly focused papers make it through; that way, no reviewer can find aspects that weren't considered. Published papers tend to be incremental; Mike would rather see radical new ideas that would cause a stir. Is it better to have a relatively unrefereed forum, allowing people to "throw the paint on the canvas" -- get their work out there in front of their peers -- without having to get past a program committee? Are there disciplines where this works?

[The Connectionists' experiment in online tech report archiving and distribution appears to be successful. FTP from authors' sites also seems to work, with technical bboards handling the advertising function. (Postscript is needed to reproduce illustrations.) Will other communities adopt free-for-all publishing, or are gatekeepers needed? We will surely have both direct dissemination and critical reviews. Will we also have journals and conferences?]