30th November 2010, 12:07 AM
vulpes Wrote:Odinn's model is fine, but would need funding. And is also predicated on the assumption that there is something badly wrong with the majority of developer funded publication reports which I'm not sure that I agree with.I don't think I originally suggested the idea. I was just adding my tuppence ha'penny to the discussion, having dealt with peer review in the past. The notion as presented, and as I envisage it, was that peer review might lend the necessary academic kudos to get the academic world to take the commercial world more seriously. It certainly does not assume that there is something badly wrong with the majority of developer funded publication reports. Any suggestion that this is the case is a gross misrepresentation of what I have been trying to say. Of course, if you wish to discuss reports that are deficient or have something badly wrong with them, we could always turn the discussion to that. I have reviewed and edited more than my fair share of such reports over the past umpteen years.
Quote:But then again, I'm probably not qualified to comment eh?You might suggest that. I could not possibly comment. :p
'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'