> In summary, CCR technical editorials are clearly not peer-reviewed
> contributions. They are technical responses to previous published
> work.  And because they are not peer-reviewed, it is their author(s)
> that carries the complete responsibility of their content. Not CCR.
> 
> Now, the open issue with all this is what should the CCR editor do if
> he receives an editorial that claims, for example, that some cows are
> green? Or what if he receives 100 editorial submissions for each
> issue? I do not have a good answer to these questions.  Some form of
> quality control is clearly necessary. But again, I think it is
> beneficial to have a space in our publication process in which members
> of the community can publish their arguments and objections to
> published work in a transparent and technical manner.

Constantine- 

I wholeheartedly agree with your high-order bit that we need to have a
place to publish the sort of "thing" you have described.  I guess what I
am struggling with is what benefit there is to making this "thing" a
non-reviewed editorial vs. a reviewed short paper.  It seems that both
get tied up in the CCR process for the same length of time.  So, why not
let them go through normal review to do the vetting you describe above?
Maybe you could have a specific 'short paper' category or maybe you ask
the reviewers to calibrate to the submitted length (and, then say the
final length must be the same number of pages as the submission).

OK... I have probably said enough about CCR for a good long while.

allman