Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase

Not well known about how E.F. Codd was rejected Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:28 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:03 PM
Points: 265, Visits: 589
http://th.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/People/Lucks/reject.pdf

See the second case in the paper. Interesting historical perspective.
Post #790913
Posted Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:58 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 5, 2014 10:54 AM
Points: 9,902, Visits: 9,480
Meh. Interesting historical references, but i'm not very impressed with the author's faux peer reviews. I read two of these papers when they were published (Codd's and RSA) and two others within a few years of their publishing (Dijkstra's and Hoare's) and there are many flaws in these "reviews".

First, his make-believe peer reviewers constantly cites "practical" objections as a reason for the editors to reject these famous papers, but they were all published as Mathematical submissions to academic publications. "Not practically possible" and "no application" are not reasons that *any* respected peer reviewer could ever use in such a forum. The second most frequent objection that he raises is that the reviewers could not understand either the symbols, the math or the references to other mathematical papers. Any peer-reviewer of mathematics papers making such an admission would not be asked to continue as a peer-reviewer.

And finally, he seems to be asking the hypothetical question "what if these papers had received such harsh peer review or criticism when they were published?", making the implicit assumption that they were not aggressively criticized. The gaping flaw here is that most of these papers in fact did receive review and criticism as harsh or even harsher (and more well-founded as well).


-- RBarryYoung, (302)375-0451 blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc.
"Performance is our middle name."
Post #790937
Posted Sunday, April 4, 2010 10:07 AM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 5:34 PM
Points: 8,726, Visits: 9,277
RBarryYoung (9/20/2009)
Meh. Interesting historical references, but i'm not very impressed with the author's faux peer reviews. I read two of these papers when they were published (Codd's and RSA) and two others within a few years of their publishing (Dijkstra's and Hoare's) and there are many flaws in these "reviews".

First, his make-believe peer reviewers constantly cites "practical" objections as a reason for the editors to reject these famous papers, but they were all published as Mathematical submissions to academic publications. "Not practically possible" and "no application" are not reasons that *any* respected peer reviewer could ever use in such a forum. The second most frequent objection that he raises is that the reviewers could not understand either the symbols, the math or the references to other mathematical papers. Any peer-reviewer of mathematics papers making such an admission would not be asked to continue as a peer-reviewer.

And finally, he seems to be asking the hypothetical question "what if these papers had received such harsh peer review or criticism when they were published?", making the implicit assumption that they were not aggressively criticized. The gaping flaw here is that most of these papers in fact did receive review and criticism as harsh or even harsher (and more well-founded as well).

I agree with Barry - these imitation peer-reviews are not impressive because they are not believable as reviews, not because they are too harsh, but because the criticisms they advance are nonsense in the context of the journals concerned and because in fact they are nowhere near harsh enough to be considered realistic.
When I peer-reviewed for IEEE I was generally fairly nice - I did sometimes (as often as not) suggest a complete rewrite, but I don't think I ever advocated outright rejection; I picked on flaws (real flaws, not imaginary ones) and really hammered them. As Barry says, "not practical" and "no forseeable application" in a review as reasons for rejection would probably get one removed from the list of available reviewers (I removed myself from the list four years ago when I found pressure of work was making it extremely difficult to find time to review submissions properly) but I'll bet the real reviews that first drafts of these papers go did some real fault hammering on sensible grounds.


Tom
Post #896429
Posted Monday, April 5, 2010 6:52 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 5, 2014 10:54 AM
Points: 9,902, Visits: 9,480
Agreed, Tom. In fact, the very first example (Dijkstra, Goto Considered Harmful) is particularly misrepresented by this author. Although it was actually only a Letter (something that I had forgotten), it is arguably the most harshly contended letter in academic history. The academic and professional action/reaction that it spawned (known commonly as the "Structure Wars") lasted ten years and no one whose career survived it is likely to ever forget it.

-- RBarryYoung, (302)375-0451 blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc.
"Performance is our middle name."
Post #897178
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 10:38 AM


SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:37 PM
Points: 1,945, Visits: 2,921
This was funny!

A few years ago, I got an email from a guy who was pissed about some pro-RDBMS stance I took on something he had screwed up. I don't remember the details, but he was going to fix a normalization problem in the front end, so he did not need DRI in the database, or some such thing.

He actually wrote that I was just like the bastards who made him stop writing perfectly good GOTO's in his code years ago.


Books in Celko Series for Morgan-Kaufmann Publishing
Analytics and OLAP in SQL
Data and Databases: Concepts in Practice
Data, Measurements and Standards in SQL
SQL for Smarties
SQL Programming Style
SQL Puzzles and Answers
Thinking in Sets
Trees and Hierarchies in SQL
Post #958098
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 12:37 PM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:15 AM
Points: 3,068, Visits: 4,639
CELKO (7/23/2010)
He actually wrote that I was just like the bastards who made him stop writing perfectly good GOTO's in his code years ago.

I had one of those in my team years ago.
One day I gave him a gift, a notepad and a pen - told him to write there as many goto as he wanted.
The guy didn't found that funny - go figure


_____________________________________
Pablo (Paul) Berzukov

Author of Understanding Database Administration available at Amazon and other bookstores.

Disclaimer: Advice is provided to the best of my knowledge but no implicit or explicit warranties are provided. Since the advisor explicitly encourages testing any and all suggestions on a test non-production environment advisor should not held liable or responsible for any actions taken based on the given advice.
Post #958172
Posted Friday, July 23, 2010 2:09 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:02 AM
Points: 147, Visits: 426
I get a little tingle of excitement everytime I use "goto" in CSharp
Post #958257
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse