Rejoinder from the Author

Author Responsibilities in Improving the Quality of Peer Reviews: A Rejoinder to Iivari (2016)

In this rejoinder to Iivari (2016), I discuss authors’ responsibilities in the process of ensuring quality reviews. I argue that one overlooked element in quality peer reviewing is authors’ unconstrained right to submit manuscripts in whatever form or quality they desire. As such, I suggest adding some constraints and offering more freedom to reviewers to maintain viability of the scholarly pub...

Reply from the author.

and reliability mandates extra capacity, fail-safes, and standard operating procedures, but especially attention to the team. Engineering also embraces ‘cognitive ergonomics’ to maximize mental processes (awareness, perception, reasoning) and expedite individualized responses. ‘Teamwork’ provides a useful prism through which to examine cognitive workload, decision making, reliability (vs safety...

Rejoinder

We thank the editor Professor David Steinberg for organizing this stimulating discussion. We are also grateful to all the discussants for their constructive comments about the method proposed in our paper (denoted as QZW hereafter). Profile monitoring is a relatively new research area; but, it has a profound application background (cf., Wang and Tsung 2005, Woodall et al. 2004). Due to the fact...

Rejoinder

Rejoinder

Regarding Jennifer’s criticism of the “independence” assumption in expression (2) of the paper, we agree that this is surely not true though it may be roughly true. However, the “correlation” calculation in (2) is a bit more complicated than it initially appears in that the calculation is with respect to a uniform distribution over say, the locations in unit i. In fact, the randomness arises fr...