Peer Refereeing ...Will It Be Missed?

Abstract

Generally, a referee has to make one of the following recommendations:

• 1 Publish essentially as is; the only changes necessary are very simple typographical matters which can be changed by the editor.

• 1 Publish after author’s minor revision; the referee suggests points which must be changed before the paper meets the standards for publication.

• 1 Publish only if the author makes major revisions. (Perhaps the paper is much too long or is badly written. The revised paper will be refereed again.)

• 1 Reject. (There is nothing salvageable.)

These ‘Hints for Referees’ [1, p.36] are all very well, but one might wonder just how to distinguish. So Don Knuth reminds referees that to be publishable:

a. The paper should contribute to the state of the art and/or should be a good expository paper. If it is purely expository it should be clearly designated as such.

b. All technical material must be accurate. A referee should check this carefully.

c. The article must be understandable, readable, and written in good English style.

d. The bibliography should be adequate.