Apology for Flame, and Survey

[Rick Ricart]

I agree with John Pollock that reviewing fees should not be instituted.
I'm not sure what prompted the unprecedented decision by WCNN, but if one 
reason for the fee is to increase the overall quality of the submissions, 
I offer the following alternative.  Have each society (IEEE, INNS, etc.) 
establish and publish minimum acceptance criteria for papers.  These criteria 
might include, for example, precise algorithm and parameter descriptions so that 
experiments can be reproduced by others.  I know this is a novel idea for 
some current scientific and engineering societies and publishers, but I think
we're ready for it.

The real reason for the reviewing fee might be, of course, financial.  All 
reviewers are very busy individuals with many professional duties.  Some, as is
evident, feel they should be reimbursed for "volunteering" their precious
time for the given society's benefit.  My answer to the problem is, "don't 
volunteer."  There are many other professionals in the field that would 
gladly volunteer their time to review papers given the opportunity; especially
if they have clear minimum acceptance guidelines available from the given
society.

These are my personal feelings and in no way do they represent an official 
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc view point.

Rick Ricart					Associate
Booz-Allen & Hamilton   Advanced Computational Technologies Practice
McLean, VA 22020			Phone: (703) 902-5494
email: ricart at picard.jmb.bah.com