This issue has an eclectic collection of papers. The first, Error-preserving local transformations on communication protocols, by Kapus-Kolar, presents theoretical results on communicating state machines, proving error-preserving local transformations to support reachability analysis. (Recommended by Lu Zhang.) The second, An Automated Analysis Methodology to Detect Inconsistencies in Web Services with WSDL Interfaces, by Fisher, Elbaum, and Rothermel, presents an analysis technique that finds inconsistencies in definitions of web services. (Recommended by Sudipto Ghosh.) The third, A Test Purpose Based Approach for Testing Timed Input Output Automata, by En-Nouaary, describes a technique to test real-time properties of software, as modeled in timed automata. (Recommended by Byoungju Choi.) The fourth, Reliability Assessment Based on Hazard Rate Model for an Embedded OSS Porting Phase, by Tamura and Yamada, offers a software reliability assessment for embedded open source software. (Recommended by Tor Stalhane.)
I occasionally get email messages from young scientists asking how to become a reviewer for the journal, so I am summarizing some of my responses here. First, it's wonderful that people want to help because the journal always needs good reviewers. I often use the phrase "good journals need good papers, but it's the reviewers who make a journal great!" I mean that with great sincerity. Reviewers provide the filter so that readers can pick up a paper expecting it to have quality research. Without that filter, we would all need to read dozens of papers to find one gem.
As co-editor in chief, I don't assign very many papers to reviewers. The reviewing editors on the editorial board handle most reviewing assignments. Being invited to review a paper is a social process, and here are a few ways to become part of that process:
I previously wrote two essays: "Standards for reviewing papers" and "Why should I review papers?" These are posted on my STVR editor's website (http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~offutt/stvr/) and will help inexperienced reviewers.
30 November 2012