Reese wrote:
> I see this as one implementation of peer review, note that the writeup was
> tailored for articles submitted to a journal, there are other
> implementations. For example, Prof. John Lott offered his study on Guns
> and Crime to anyone who expressed an interest, whilst he was preparing it
> for the "Journal of Legal Studies." Copies were given to groups on either
> side of the gun debate and their feedback solicited - not a usual practice
> he notes, but evidence nonetheless of another implementation, one better
> suited for true "peer review." (More Guns, Less Crime, pp 122.)
the main difference between the posted link and peer-review in crypto is
most likely that there are far less cryptographers around than
journalists. if you're writing an article, the chance for finding
someone in your own company who is capable of doing a review is very
high. if you're doing crypto, the chances of finding someone in your
CITY is not too good.
all depending on what exactly you're doing, of course. implementing
rot13 again doesn't exactly compare to developing CSS v2.0 (3.0, 4.0 -
whatever the current count is).
