From prechelt@inf.fu-berlin.de Mon Jun 24 16:52:43 2013 Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.66]) by list1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.80.1) for rqc-interest@lists.fu-berlin.de with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Ur88I-0014HE-Dw>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:52:42 +0200 Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.80.1) for rqc-interest@lists.fu-berlin.de with esmtp (envelope-from ) id <1Ur88I-002Jal-CN>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:52:42 +0200 Received: from busan.imp.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.118.24] helo=BUSAN) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.80.1) for rqc-interest@lists.fu-berlin.de with smtps (envelope-from ) id <1Ur88I-000w2H-Aa>; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:52:42 +0200 From: "Lutz Prechelt" To: Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:52:41 +0200 Message-ID: <015101ce70ea$7a325460$6e96fd20$@fu-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac5w6noaU3xb3a3ySNG/7PRqrNk7dQ== Content-Language: de X-Originating-IP: 160.45.118.24 X-purgate: clean X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-ID: 151147::1372085562-0000097E-F98984CF/0-0/0-0 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000389, version=1.2.3 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,LOTS_OF_MONEY X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.3-zedat0a54d5a on Dschibuti.ZEDAT.FU-Berlin.DE X-Spam-Level: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:13:37 +0200 Subject: [RQC-interest] Review Quality Collector funding proposal status X-BeenThere: rqc-interest@lists.fu-berlin.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: sporadic information on Review Quality Collector List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:52:43 -0000 Dear person interested in Review Quality Collector (RQC), we were in contact about the Review Quality Collector initiative in October 2012. https://www.mi.fu-berlin.de/w/SE/ReviewQualityCollectorHome I submitted a funding proposal for about EUR 600,000 to the BMBF-funded program "Performance Evaluation in Research" in November 2012 to get RQC implementation running. That proposal was rejected. The reviewers were interested in the weaknesses of the proposal but thoroughly uninterested in its strengths. See the details at the bottom if you are curious. What will happen now? I do not intend to bury the idea and will rather look for alternative ways to make it real. Most likely, I will put together a proposal for community-based funding and approach some of you to participate in that. That will take a few months to prepare, though. Any feedback in the meantime is highly welcome. With kind regards, Lutz Prechelt Prof. Dr. Lutz Prechelt; prechelt@inf.fu-berlin.de Institut f. Informatik; Freie Universitaet Berlin Takustr. 9, R.014; 14195 Berlin; Germany +49 30 838 75115; http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/w/SE/ DETAILS: The reviewers' main criticisms were these: - RQC does not address a fundamental issue. (This ignores a section of the funding program into which RQC fitted nicely.) - The proposal lacks theoretical foundation. (Apparently the reviewers expected me to explicitly declare my epistemological stance. I haven't. There is very little actual literature on review quality in the RQC sense. The proposal was restricted to 10 pages.) - The review quality criteria are insufficiently justified. (This is a valid criticism. The preliminary explanations in the proposal are acceptable from a pragmatic point of view, but likely insufficient from most others.)