tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (On referee-author communications) 2018-11-04T23:14:50-08:00 http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/ Lussumo Vanilla & Feed Publisher Joseph O'Rourke comments on "On referee-author communications" (12346) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/876/on-refereeauthor-communications/?Focus=12346#Comment_12346 2011-01-02T16:39:07-08:00 2018-11-04T23:14:50-08:00 Joseph O'Rourke http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/240/ 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: ... Todd Trimble comments on "On referee-author communications" (12345) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/876/on-refereeauthor-communications/?Focus=12345#Comment_12345 2011-01-02T16:15:15-08:00 2018-11-04T23:14:50-08:00 Todd Trimble http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/411/ I agree, Daniel. This discussion belongs on a blog. I agree, Daniel. This discussion belongs on a blog.

]]>
Daniel Moskovich comments on "On referee-author communications" (12336) http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/876/on-refereeauthor-communications/?Focus=12336#Comment_12336 2011-01-02T14:42:28-08:00 2018-11-04T23:14:50-08:00 Daniel Moskovich http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/448/ 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 ... 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.

]]>