Re: Shamos Rebuttal, the Finale

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sun May 15 2005 - 12:37:21 CDT

Stephanie wrote:

>
> Another little tactic on discrediting Shamo's ideas: his paper is *not*
> peer-reviewed, so it does not meet the usual academic standards. In
> academic circles, a non-peer-reviewed paper is about as trustworthy as a
> personal letter.
>
That's an excellent point, Stephanie. I remember asking the CFP 2004
conference chair about that last year. She said the papers were accepted
without any scrutiny at all. I guess that's a nice privilege to have -- an
opportunity to say whatever one wants. But this distinction should be
understood while evaluating these types of papers. There's a lot of
artistic license there.

Alan

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:37 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT