Re: Journals

From: Hal Ruhl <>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 23:07:23 -0700

Dear Russell:

I agree with the objective but it seems to me we first need to provide such
forums with things like a rough map of the current acronym landscape and a
companion map of the suspected relative merit of current concepts both of
which must come from within the smaller group. Both maps are still dynamic
as would be the FAQ that reflected them - thus as you say a journal of
sorts. I would not, in that context, consider the FAQ as unrefereed since
both kinds of forum are - for pragmatic reasons - rather self referential
and the FAQ would not have unlimited access.

In essence a well structured and reviewed FAQ for this list might help the
entry of papers into the "mainstream".


At 7/5/01, you wrote:
>No - it has a different function. The FAQ is more like a review
>article of the discussion on the email list, which in turn is like an
>unrefereed journal. We do need to get articles into the refereed
>scientific mainstream where we can. These form more solid islands
>within the "swampy peninsula" of speculation you so aptly call
>it. These more solid bulding blocks act as "seeds" and "anchors", from
>which our comprehension will grow.
>This list has already refereed the "Why Occam's Razor paper", and it
>is a better paper for all the constructive criticism it received.
> Cheers
Received on Wed Jul 04 2001 - 20:12:25 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST