Christophe-

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

> > (1) Reviewed Articles vs. Editorial Zone
> 
> and I'm sorry you find them sub-par. i hope this opinion is not shared
> by all readers (I know authors of these notes receive feedback and
> like this opportunity).

Let me try to clarify.  I didn't mean to say that I had found anything
in CCR to be sub-par.  What I wonder is if we are creating a situation
whereby a paper can be published as an editorial even if it wouldn't
have been put in the reviewed papers area and it will look and smell the
same in the long run.  I.e., just by looking at a web page that says
"CCR, July 2006" for some paper does not tell me if it was refereed or
not and therefore doesn't clue me in on how I should take the paper.  My
intent was to wonder about the possibility, not to in any way insult any
of the authors of editorials.  If my original note came across as
insulting to anyone, my apologies.

> 	- I think mentioning in each editorial that the document
> 	has not been peer reviewed is a very good idea and i'm
> 	gonna implement that in the next issue.

That'd be great.  That one little thing would clear up a bunch of this
concern for me.

> 	- another point to be discussed: do we need a separate
> 	section for short technical papers?

Personally, I am fine with short technical papers getting reviewed and
put with the other reviewed papers.  I.e., length isn't the over-riding
factor for me.

> 	- last, please voice if you think we should stop the short
> 	technical papers in CCR

Nope.  I don't think so.

Thanks,
allman