Reviewer Guidelines
This book is currently in a "beta reading" state. That means that I am actively looking for feedback from you, the beta reader. If there is anything funky about the book, please let me know on github or discord. Possible funkiness includes:
- Typos
- Unclear concepts
- Unnecessary rambling
- Impossible problems
... And the like.
I will also have a few reviewer notices scattered throughout the book for specific issues that I want more input on.
Please keep in mind that I am trying to make Julia as easy to understand as possible. It's really hard to do this right. For example, I might over-explain a few concepts that otherwise might be seen as "trivial". I might also omit "important" jargon that I feel is unnecessary. I am really (overly) relying on you all to gently nudge the book in the right direction and welcome feedback from programmers of all levels.
Prominent Reviewers
I feel peer review is an essential part of any academic work. I also feel that it is important to be as transparent as possible about that review process.
When the book is finalized, I will ask a few experts that I know to review the work and tell me what they think. With their permission, I will then put their name somewhere in the acknowledgments for the book (probably next to an "About the Author" section or something). If you would like to be considered as a "Prominent Reviewer," please...
- Review a full chapter as if it were an academic paper. I mean, really rip the book to shreds and tell me how big of an idiot I am.
- Let me know your academic background so I can include you.
I'll also be keeping an eye out for people who contribute substantially during the review process and reaching out to them to see if they would like to be listed as a "Prominent Reviewer" as well.
I think that's all for now. Thanks for reading the book and I hope it is helpful in some way!