If you want to help write this article, let me know. --JWSchmidt 19:42, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting. I shall read it carefully when I have the time.--Hillgentleman 10:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I can see a difficulty, or perhaps just a new phenomenon. Since there is not a final version of a paper, scholars citing a paper must give the date. There would probably be several different good versions of the paper, and different scholars may be reading different ones. (Or perhaps these versions would either split or tend to a common point ultimately.)---Hillgentleman 10:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Much depends on the author(s). In many cases, once peer review has been completed there would be little additional change to the article. "Well-written" articles would change little in response to peer review. Also, in many fields of study it is rare for scholars to cite articles that have not yet been through peer review. --JWSchmidt 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Under Flexibility to accomodate... the text read "could by archived" I think this should be "could be archived", I changed it and signed. This is my first edit on Wikia, hope it is OK Logicalgregory 04:53, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Apart from the typo, I find myself in agreement with almost all of it (which is very strange because normally I do not agree with anybody about anything). I'm a bit confused about where the paper stands now. It seems to have been around for six years, is it finished? has it been peer reviewed? has it been archived? has it been published elsewhere? Logicalgregory 05:35, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the error. Few wiki editors have an interest in formal peer review. --68.109.175.242 13:54, September 4, 2010 (UTC)