Jonathan Franklin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Edouard A. <edouard@fausse.info> wrote:
I'm questioning the degree of assurance required for a new algorithm to be unleashed on the unsuspecting masses.
Exactly the point I was trying to make.
So we agree violently then. ;-)
To be more precise the novelty of an algorithm shouldn't be held against it.
If you define "reasonable assurance" to exclude any algorithm that has not been published in a reputable journal, with at least 2 citations, is it still novel? ;-)
Just kidding, WRT the novelty bit.
These questions all seem valid, but wouldn't it be enough to raise them during the review? As the discussion suggest, "novelty" is not clear-cut enough to be a good exclusion criteria. So I think "the novelty of an algorithm shouldn't be held against it" in the sense that it should not strictly prevent a review. However, it may indeed be a strong reason to reject the library during review. Regards, Thomas