2
$\begingroup$

This question appeared on the board earlier today.

While I think that it is an interesting idea, I am not sure how much does it fit with the nature of the board at the moment. My perception would be that the question is "too broad".

If we were to do open peer reviews like this, should we have a tag for it? Does it need some form of guideline? Could it be perceived as too open and therefore warrant a more elastic treatment of "review my [whatever]" type of posts too?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I believe the SE.DSP community should be open to changes or additions to how we do things.

What I suggest:

  • Create a tag called peer-review.
  • Focus it on what SE.DSP is about: theory and algorithms, rather than coding or hardware implementation.
  • See how it works for this post.

I've added the tag to that post. Let's see what happens?

There does exist a separate Code Review site for software code reviews, but I don't think SE.DSP has enough traffic to merit a separate review site.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. I had a go as we are "snowed in" today. One of the open questions is probably how do we gracefully close questions such as this? What is considered an acceptable answer? $\endgroup$ – A_A Mar 2 '18 at 15:05
  • $\begingroup$ @A_A Good questions! Let me think about it... Anyone else care to chime in? $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Mar 2 '18 at 15:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So this seemed to go "alright", three things I kept as "notes" from this experiment were: a) The review style was "Is it ready for publication / have we done everything we could?" and this can be determined further if required, b) Anonymity / review style: Perhaps it would be best if the review was completely anonymous, which is possible with Arxiv or if not, the reviewer should note that and not go completely "mad" on someone who is asking for feedback with their name. I could be even more "dry"; and c) "Don't just shoot down, leave a substantial suggestion for improvement". $\endgroup$ – A_A Mar 5 '18 at 9:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .