|
CIPR / RPI Homepage of Amir Said |
|---|
|
|
|
As a member of the editorial board, I invite the coding and imaging researchers
that visit this page to submit their works to our Journals
- IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, published by the
Signal Processing Society, IEEE.
- Journal of Electronic Imaging, co-published by the
SPIE, and IS&T
(alternative page).
|
|
This page also contains some information and links that I make available for
those that I ask to review papers, and some thoughts on the importance of their
voluntary work.
|
|
Links to information for reviewers and authors
- The Task of the Referee, by A.J. Smith (PDF/HTML)
- Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices, by M, Roig
- Article on Peer Review, by wordIQ.com
|
|
|
|
With the ease of publishing in the Internet, and the growing (exponentially?)
number of technical and scientific conferences, the objective of enabling the
quick dissemination of scientific ideas is becoming less important for technical
journals.
|
|
In fact, what we have now is an overload of information, and the fact that most
of it may be useless. Even when we find the type of information that we were looking
for, it may be quite unreliable. Thus, I believe that currently the most important
objective of a journal is to assure that the information it contains is---due to a
careful and strict review process---reliable and correct. At least, it should be much
more trustworthy than that found in Web pages, and, to a certain extent, in conference
papers.
|
|
The scientific method is, by its own nature, quite resilient to the "noise"
introduced by bad science. However, our scientific knowledge advances much more
slowly when we cannot effectively eliminate the bad and the dishonest (not to
mention the stress caused on researchers trying to sort out the truth). Thus, it
should be clear that the voluntary work of reviewers with good technical knowledge
is essential for science advancement.
|
|
In my professional career, working as editor and reviewer, I had the opportunity
to see mostly good scientific work, but also the chance to review work that is
not exactly... acceptable.
|
|
It definitely does not help the editor if the reviewer accepts everything in good
faith. Many papers are grossly incorrect, or even dishonest. We need the reviewers
to spend some time and effort looking for the truth. Anonymity is essential because the
reviewer must feel comfortable to reject assumptions or conclusions, and to ask for more
information or results---it is just part of the scientific method.
|
|
|
|
 Bio Page- Arithmetic and Huffman Coding
- Compound Images and Video
- Structured Scalable Metaformats
- Virtual Environment Design Automation
- Set Partitioning in Hierarchical Trees
- SPIE/IS&T Conf. on Image and Video Communications and Processing
- Other Links
|
|
 |
|