From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-07 10:46:08
John Phillips wrote:
> Who checks to see if the submitter is presenting a fair picture of
> the review? If it is no one, then there is the chance (hopefully rare)
> that the submitter will present a skewed version of what happened in
> the review. If it is one person, that person is the de-facto review
> manager, since that person has the single largest responsibility of
> the review
> manager (checking all the reviews and determining the best available
> recommendation). If it is the whole tie-breaker group, then there are
> many people doing the work that used to be done by one. If it is
> supposed to come from the participants, then the discussion of the
> submitter's version of the review becomes another review and little is
> gained (if anything).
I agree that it could be incredibly hard for a submitter to prepare an
impartial summary of the opinions of the reviewers and that not everyone
will want to do so.
That said, if a submitter is willing and able to go through this experience,
we might consider granting him/her the opportunity if a review manager
hasn't turned up for, say, three months.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk