From: Nagib Callaos To: XXXX Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:51:07 -0400 Subject: Fw: Regarding your WMSCI 2005 paper submission Dear Mr. Thomer Gil Thank you for your comments. We think we understand your perspective and we definitely respect your opinion. As you know there are more perspectives and opinions on this issue. Willis & Bobys (1983, Perishing in Publishing: An analysis of rejection letters. Wisconsin sociologist, 20(2-3), 84-91), for example, found that 54% of the rejection letters provided some justification for the rejection, and the most frequent reason (19%) was that the manuscript was "inappropriate for the journal". They also found that comments of the reviewers had been included in the 57% of the letters. I think you may agree with me that if these numbers are for journals, where editors may take the decision to publish a paper in next issues if there had been some errors or mistakes from the reviewers, in conferences reviewing, without the option of "next-issue", with a less formal reviewing process (as it is stated by many authors) and with the characteristic timetable restrictions, less than 57% of the non-acceptance letters would include the reviewers comments. In the other hand, Relman, et al. (1980, Greetings - with regrets, New England Journal of Medicine, 303(26), 1527-1528), for example, admitted that it was impossible to give reasons for each of the 3,000 rejection letters sent annually by The New England Journal of Medicine, and it may also results in many rebuttals from authors. So, if this kind of complexity seems not to be always feasible for journals, it will have less probability of being feasible for a conference. In our case we are very sorry we are not finding it feasible. We appreciate your comment, we respect your opinion, and we sincerely hope we might have your understanding. Sincerely Professor Nagib Callaos