| FME 2001 Electronic Meeting Message Board |
|---|---|
| [ FME 2001 ] |
| Please email jno@di.uminho.pt in case you want to stick a message here about the papers you are concerned with. |
| Paper 01 |
| Paper 02 |
| Paper 03 |
| Paper 04 |
| Paper 05 |
| Paper 06 |
| Paper 07 |
| Paper 08 |
| Paper 09 |
| Paper 10 |
| Paper 11 |
| Paper 12 |
| Paper 13 |
| Paper 14 |
| Paper 15 |
| Paper 16 |
> I believe there is no consensus towards recommending > acceptance of the paper. Perhaps we could reach a consensus recommending > the PC to consider the paper a borderline candidate, > if everyone agrees with this, of course.I agree with this and I hope that the PC will get sufficient information from our e-mail discussions.
>Dear Lars, > >I wonder whether you'd be willing to trigger discussion about paper 17, >which has got a 1, a 2 and a 5 given by your sub-referee Roland Bol...I've asked him about that yesterday and I just got the following reply:
>From referee 1: > ... and the central "case study" > demonstrating the applicability has already been published in more detail > elsewhere. OK, I didn't know that. Then the paper should be rejected. Roland Bol
...which settles the discussion, I guess.
| Paper 18 |
| Paper 19 |
| Paper 22 |
The three reviewers agree closely on the facts about this paper. It is very interesting and potentially quite valuable. It is well-written, as far as it goes. On the other hand, the presentation is sketchy, which might indicate a lack of maturity in the work itself. The work is likely to improve with time.
The three reviewers diverge on their interpretation of these facts: two say "accept", one says "reject" (we'll get a better paper next year).
I believe that the only way to make a decision like this is in the context of the content and quality of the other accepted papers. So the discussion should be tabled until that context is available.
| Paper 24 |
| Paper 25 |
| Paper 26 |
| Paper 27 |
| Paper 28 |
| Paper 29 |
| Paper 30 |
| Paper 31 |
| Paper 32 |
| Paper 33 |
| Paper 34 |
| Paper 35 |
| Paper 36 |
| Paper 37 |
| Paper 38 |
| Paper 39 |
| Paper 40 |
| Paper 41 |
| Paper 42 |
| Paper 43 |
| Paper 44 |
| Paper 45 |
In fact, his overall recommendation was `2 or 3', which has appeared as a `2' on the table, and in the calculation of the paper's overall score. I propose to change this overall recommendation to a `3', still consistent with his recommendation, for the following reasons:
The reports in fact seem to make similar points. The difference is that Zak is aware of (and to some extent involved in) similar work being carried out at Oxford in the context of CSP and FDR, which is possibly why he feels the work is not so novel, whereas the other referees do feel the work is new. I don't know where or whether the Oxford work has yet appeared (I can't find any references to papers on their rather extensive website) - the fact that Zak gives no references for it, or criticisms that they are unaware of the Oxford work, indicates that it has not yet appeared.
I hope this is sufficient to close the discussion at the same time as opening it! I think we are essentially in agreement about this paper.
To sum up (for Jose), raise OR1 to 3 for this paper.
| Paper 48 |
| Paper 49 |
| Paper 50 |
| Paper 51 |
| Paper 52 |
| Paper 53 |
| Paper 54 |
I think I can summarize our discussion as follows:
a) We did not end up with a consensus on accepting/rejecting the paper. The three of us keep their initial recommendations ("4", "1", "1")
b) We all agree that the paper should tell more about the formal work that is mentioned in the paper. But two of us believe that the current state of the paper does not give enough guarantee on what the final version of the paper would be.
It seems that Nico will attend the PC meeting, so he will be able to transmit other details of our lively discussion.
| Paper 55 |
| Paper 56 |
| Paper 57 |
| Paper 58 |
| Paper 59 |
| Paper 60 |
| Paper 61 |
| Paper 64 |
| Paper 65 |
| Paper 66 |
| Paper 67 |
| Paper 68 |
| Paper 69 |
| Paper 70 |
| Paper 71 |
| Paper 72 |