Next: The Role of
Up: Refereeing and Reliability
Previous: Our Process of
For this Proceedings , each paper has been read very thoroughly by a
minimum of two grad students or post-docs or faculty members. These
readers varied in ability and background but gamely challenged anything
they didn't understand or believe to be true.
Each of these readers had been asked to actively participate in the
``activation" of the paper, looking closely for places to expand on
the exposition and in particular for useful places for live mathematics
to go. In these settings, Maple codes (or in some cases Axiom, GAP, Pari,
or Mathematica codes) have been placed. Where possible the provided code
is closely related to the problem under examination; if not an
actual algorithmization of the underlying expressions. This permits
the reader to investigate the claims and observations of the author
in situ and perhaps to down-load code for further analysis.
Then there is editorial responsibility. Rob Corless, Jonathan Borwein,
Peter Borwein and Loki Jörgenson are prepared to accept some part
of the blame if something inappropriate slips through. In this particular
hyper-context, the task of editing has taken on new dimension and demanded
a fresh approach to an ill defined process. The editors may be reached for
comment (or criticism) at email@example.com.
Finally, we have put in place annotation and submission mechanisms
which will allow readers to comment on a paper and even to submit
articles to the collection; naturally, these comments are available
for other readers to see. In some sense this provides an open
forum refereeing process.