Book Reviews RICHARDR.SHIVELY,BookReviews Editor
L. M. Biberman · 1975
Comments on theReviewofPrinciples ofInteractive Computer Graphics Iwas amazedtoseeintheFebruary 1974issue oftheTRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS suchan inept review ofPrinciples ofInteractive Computer Graphics, byRobert Sproull andmyself. Theremust beserious faults inyour procedures bothforchoosing reviewers andformonitoring their efforts, ifreviews as worthless asDr.Biberman's areallowed toreachtheprinted page. Ourbookisabout abranch ofcomputerscience, andIbelieve any reasonably competent andconscientious computerscientist wouldbe qualified towrite a review ofit.Theremustbemany computer, scientists upon whom you couldhavecalled fora review, yetyou chosetoapproach Dr.Biberman, whoisnota computerscientist at all. Hislackofbackground incomputerscience surfaces repeatedly inthereview, mostnoticeably whenhecomplains ofhaving tofigure outthemeaning ofthetermpush-down stack. Hisrefusal tocome togrips with any ofthebook's computer-related material hasresulted ina worthless review thatconveysnothing ofany substance about thefaults ormerits ofour book.Yourchoice ofDr.Biberman may havebeenmadewiththebestofintentions; itwas nevertheless adisastrous mistake that you could haveavoided byafewminutes' study ofthebook's TableofContents. Theineptitude ofDr.Biberman's review should havebeenimmediately obvious toyou.Hereisareview ofabookthatissaid toconsist offive parts, yetthereview isalmost entirely devoted tocriticismsofPartOne.Inthemiddle ofsome angry remarks about our treatment ofdisplay hardware, thereviewer says,Inow realize full wellthis isprimarily a bookon programming, yethepersists incarping on abouthardware issues totheextentofsixparagraphs. Thenheaddssixsentences on thesoftware chapters thatmakeup three-quarters ofthebook.Thesesentences include suchprofound remarks as,Ienjoyed thebookfromhereonandMyjoysomewhatdiminished atthebeginning ofPartFive. Ifthereviewer enjoyedthebookfrompage 85onwards, whydidhehavevirtually nothing substantive tosay aboutit?Atthevery least hecould have explained whyPartFivediminished hisjoy. Ibelieve that you should haveknownbetter thantosend ourbook toDr.Biberman. Onreceiving hisreview you should havedetected theabove-mentioned faults, andshould haveaskedDr.Biberman to rectify them.Failing this, you should haverefused topublish the review. Icannot seehowyour courseofaction hasdoneanything otherthantodamagethereputation ofyourjournal.