Agree with Pascal remarks and your reply Miguel, > 2) The editors/reviewers should have a more active role and they should use > the recommendations and mandatory rules as a checklist. > For example, if the authors writes that their code can be compiled directly > by calling gcc, the editor/review should recommend to use "make" instead, > with the $(CC) symbol. > If the authors wrote all the code in a single messy file, they should be > recommended to split into several files to improve the overall organization > of the code, etc. > If the authors are using a library which is not accepted by IPOL, they should > be told and eventually a discussion started to accept the library or ask the > author to write more standard code.
For this point I am agree to the checklist, but from my point of view the recommandation should be « strongly » recommended since in all cases the authors can be sure that they will have the request of the editor if it not follows the check points. So it can save time to reviewer to avoid various request and it could help to avoid to start with a negative feeling of the proposed implementation. But I think that we are agree ;) Best, Bertrand -- IPOL - Image Processing On Line - http://ipol.im/ contact e...@ipol.im - http://www.ipol.im/meta/contact/ news+feeds twitter @IPOL_journal - http://www.ipol.im/meta/feeds/ announces annou...@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/announce/ discussions discuss@list.ipol.im - http://tools.ipol.im/mm/discuss/
