Re: Ba`i Review cu?a TS Nguyen Xuan Tuyen

["Nguyen Tien Zung" <tienzung@darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr>]

>    To tell the truth I don't like the review neither. The review has
> the choice to refuse to review a paper. In any case, the paper
> has been published. At least the referee agree with the guy and the 
> journal is recognised by the Math.Rev. 
> 
>    I have chosen to to that way when few bad articles were sent to me ( 
> also from the Math Rev). According to the custom here, the reviewer 
> should be more tactful. Review is not a referee report. The writing style

> was also not perfect, so I guess Prof HUng did not want to be so chilly, 
> only the English was chilly.
> 

I don't agree with your opinion. I think that a good review is the one
which
gives useful information about the paper so that the reader may decide
wether
to read the paper or not. So IMHO Prof. Hung wrote quite a good,
informative review. 
When reviewing something, I think it is good to be frank. 

When you say "at least the referee agrees with the guy .." perhaps you
don't realize
the situation in Russia, where there's a lot of politicking in publishing
papers - it is not
unusual that bad papers get published in good journals while the good ones
are refused.
Moreover, Journals of Tbilisi are not considered good at all. The referees
themselves
may not understand what they read. so no warranty. AMS includes almost
every journal
in their Math Reviews (even a Preprint series of our Faculty here that they
mistook
for a journal ! ), so no wonder there's lot of rubbish out there. 

I don't think it is good to refuse to review a paper because it is a bad
paper.
(If you are a referee it is good to do that). In case of reviewer, if you
don't
review then they'll have to find another  reviewer anyway. And that other
reviewer
may be very bad himself and says only useless words about the paper without
any
important information. It is commonplace nowadays to see "neutral" useless
reviews,
perhaps because people don't get payed anough for this hard work (only
8$/review,
not in money but in "bon d'achat" ).