Overall, I had a VERY good experience. The delay in publishing was due to
my own delays in making the appropriate revisions. Other than that, the
reviews were useful and good suggestions to improve the manuscript were
made. Here are my answers to the specific questions:

a. No.
b. N/A
c. Not in my case.
d. Yes, or a few articles.
e. I think that would be helpful
f. I thought they were clear to start with.
g. Yes, that could help bolster specific submissions.
h. That could be more difficult in that one would almost have to have a
topic in mind before approaching someone.

Hope this is even remotely useful.


> ## PLEASE REPLY TO THE WHOLE GROUP ##
>
> Dear Research_Practice Members,
>
> The JRP Peer Review Process continues to be worth discussing.
>
> H i g h l i g h t s
>
> Issues/Questions arising from this discussion:
>
> (a) Is the Web-based journal technology alienating?
> (b) Why are some authors not submitting revisions? (I think, we have had
> 2-3
> cases of this.)
> (c) Are authors submitting to JRP to get feedback to publish elsewhere?
> (d) Could we have an article on what makes a good JRP article?
> (e) Could we have a typology of articles published in JRP?
> (f) Could we restate the scope and objectives of the journal more clearly?
> (g) Could we give a list of areas on which we are looking for
> contributions?
> (h) Could we mentor aspiring authors?
>
> . . .


Gautam Bhattacharyya
Department of Chemistry
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29678
Phone: 864-656-1356
FAX: 864-656-6613