[IPOL discuss] Corrections of erratas in IPOL articles

[Nicolas Limare]

(follow-up on the discuss mailing-list, discuss at list.ipool.im)

Hi,

For me, the principles are:
* IPOL is a journal and the editorial rules of scientific journals
  must be followed. Being 100% online, having some software content or
  involving a close community where everyone knows the editors doesn't
  affect these rules.
* The journal rules apply to the reviewed content: article and
  code. This content is published, identified, referenced, and as such
  should not change over time.
* As a journal, IPOL is not continuously updated. It will not feature
  the latest versions of an algorithm or software. These new versions
  can be distributed on the personal homepages of the authors, or in
  new articles.

Here are my comments on Jean-Michel's text. I suggest to reorder the
items in a logical progession: the article, then the code (implements
the article), then the demo (uses the code) and archive (of the demo).

> -IPOL web page settings for articles, demo and archive can be
> modified by the editorial board;

What is an "IPOL web page setting"? Is it the content? the
presentation? the address?

> -the article itself can also be corrected provided the corrections
> are approved by editor, or editor+referee (and by all authors).

I would like to limit that to minor error corrections (orthograph,
punctuation, bad reference, etc...). If the math of an article is
wrong, it should either stay wrong, maybe with an Errata "This is
probably wrong", or restart a full review, with new reviewers (because
the previous ones did not see the error).

> -Code corrections can be authorized, if the necessity or utility of
> the changes is explained, and provided the  code continues doing
> exactly what the article says it does. Such corrections must
> therefore be approved by editor, or editor+referee (and by all
> authors).

Here again, I would like to limit these modifications to error
corrections (ie when there is a bug, the code does not work in a case
not seen during the review) or when we have to change it (an external
library changed drastically, or there is a copyright, patent or
license problem). And I suggest to add that the modified code replaces
the previous one. At any time, one and only one version of the code is
distributed in an IPOL article.

> -demo changes by the authors or editors concerning the presentation
> of results, the parameter ranges, etc. which do not change the code
> are authorized. Nevertheless, since they may alter the meaning of
> the article, they should be approved by a competent editor and by
> all authors of the article.

I think it is important to repeat that demo must always use the code
distributed in the IPOL article, in the current version. That is why,
by design, the algorithm code is always retrieved by the demo system
from the IPOL web page. Then the "which do not change the code" part
is not needed.

> -items of the public archive of each article can be removed by the
> editorial board (reasons: size, inadequate content, user requests);

correction: "archive of each demo" instead of "archive of each
article"

> For each article or code correction, identifiable "Errata"
> paragraphs should be inserted or appended in  the article or code
> and in its "readme",  giving the exact correction (text before text
> after), its date, and by whom it was approved.

OK I add this for README.txt to the software guidelines.

-- 
Nicolas LIMARE - CMLA - ENS Cachan    http://www.cmla.ens-cachan.fr/~limare/
IPOL - image processing on line                          http://www.ipol.im/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://tools.ipol.im/mailman/archive/discuss/attachments/20111124/01ab7d6e/attachment.pgp>