05 August 2015

  Today is the last day of class for what I accidentally called "Numerical
Models of PDE's" and which I informally named "Scientific Communication".
Our department offerered no other graduate course over the summer, and so
I was able to lure 6 students, an ambitious undergraduate, and 2 interested
auditors who made it half way.  I believe they were all attracted because
I challenged them to work on a paper of some kind, with the goal to at least
try to write something good enough for publication.  To make this challenge
realistic, I claimed I could find two reviewers for every document submitted.
I believe this aspect of anonymous peer review fascinated and motivated 
the students, offering them a sneak preview of the real experience of the
process of journal publication.

  And that's where you come in.  I am very grateful that you agreed to review
a paper, with, as it turns out, perhaps a more urgent deadline (today) than
the vague 3 to 6 month period that often applies for real journal articles.
Students who submitted papers repeatedly wanted to know if their reviews
had come in, and when they did, I had to explain to them that criticism is
not something to be taken personally and that it is a reviewer's job to find
weaknesses and suggest improvements.

  I believe all the students enjoyed the experience and learned from it.
A number of them insist that they plan to polish up their papers and try
to submit them to a journal, which is all I could hope for.

  Thanks for your help!

John