Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:01:07 From: SCHLAUER@chemie.uni-wuerzburg.de To: email@example.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg4188$foo@default> Subject: Re: IMPRESSIONS FROM the other end
> This seems rather strange considering the direction CPN appears to
> be taking as it traverses the portal to the New Millennium. Don't
> get me wrong I'm all for a gradual mix of all and sundry but I do
> think the News & Views section needs to be beefed-up a bit to the
> level that it used to be in the old "Black & Whites". Can we have
> a few less "Descriptive" articles and a few more active ones?
Since I feel some responsibility for the contents of CPN (I am a
coeditor), I think I should share some opinions on these topics.
1. Any journal (not only CPN) can only be as good as the
contributions submitted for publication. If you want more active
stuff in CPN, the only remedy is to write such and submit it to
us. There is *NO* other way. CPN has, unlike many other journals
these days, the opportunity to devote substantial proportions of
valuable page space to its news and views section that is not peer-
reviewed. This is the reason why sometimes rather "wild" material
appears there. However, we trust the mehods featured in news and
views have at least worked for the authors who submitted them.
2. If you are looking for in-depth information, you must scan the
articles (=not the news and views section). These papers are
considered more seriously than news and views submissions, and all
critical information therein was seen at least by two coeditors.
Papers considered predominantly scientific or at least "serious" in
content are sent to anonymous peer reviewers for a critical check.
3. The editorial team of CPN is always appreciative of constructive
criticism, and we will try to improve CPN where we can. If you have
an idea how authors could be incited to submit "active" rather than
"descriptive" texts for news and views, please specify.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:32:09 PST