tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (On referee-author communications)

Joseph O'Rourke comments on "On referee-author communications" (12346)

Joseph O'Rourke — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:39:07 -0800

I think that---sometimes---we must ignore principles and instead bow to the intense interest as indicated by votes: The previous (good) referee question received 115 votes: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/36596/refereeing-a-paper/36601#36601 .

Todd Trimble comments on "On referee-author communications" (12345)

Todd Trimble — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:15:15 -0800

I agree, Daniel. This discussion belongs on a blog.

Daniel Moskovich comments on "On referee-author communications" (12336)

Daniel Moskovich — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 14:42:28 -0800

I'd like to discuss whether On referee-author communications is an acceptable question. Although it's certainly a popular and an interesting topic, my contention is that it is not an appropriate MO question; it is a discussion and a poll of opinions, rather than a question to which one might expect a useful answer.

I'd say: I am interested in the topic and I want to talk about it, but this isn't the right forum really.