- 1
- We cannot prevent that an author acts stupid and submits a
later version of the same paper erroneously as a new paper, because we
cannot check the semantics of the paper.
- 2
- This does not mean that there could not be predefined
topics.
- 3
- Typically this is the
case, if one sees that it's a paper by some friend/colleague ...so
that one fears that one does not have an unbiased opinion.
- 4
- In general a paper gets reviewed by more than one
expert.
- 5
- For the discussion we ignore the fact that there might
be equal outcomes.
- 6
- Whether it's wise to act as a
dictator, overruling all the others in the committee, taking lonely
decisions, or undoing decisions taken in consensus is a different
question and outside the possibility of our modeling.
- 7
- Note that those semantical changes
of the chair are different from what the administrator could do. The
chair should be able to make the changes within the software,
while the admin in some sense is outside. The admin can probably also
change data, for instance by directly querying the data base (or wiping
out the data base from the file system, for that matter ...) but
that's something else.
- 8
- Actually, the download
version is more challenging in some sense, it has higher requirements on
platform independence and easy installation. The webserver can be
installed and ``massaged'' by the experienced admin until it runs
stable and then rot.