{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02008310249307479, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00554016620498615, 'mean_word_length': 4.666666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Report of the Treasurer, 1981-82

A few new procedures have been added to the journal's operations. With each decision letter an author not only receives a copy of all referee reports but also an optional form to complete with his evaluation of the referees. Many authors choose not to respond. Of those who do respond, I have found the evaluations to be useful in two ways. First, they help me to identify truly exceptional referees. Although it is not difficult for an editor to distinguish between the careful and not so careful referees, it is difficult to assess when a referee's comments are truly useful to an author. Second, the reports have also, on occasion, stimulated a dialogue. When authors feel severely wronged by a referee's comments and can clearly demonstrate that a referee misinterpreted or misunderstood a basic component of an argument—particularly in the more technical areas—I have attempted to open a dialogue between referee and author and sometimes reevaluated the manuscript. We have also instituted a new procedure for informing referees of the disposition of manuscripts they have reviewed. On the bottom of the referee forms a referee is asked whether he or she would like to receive copies of (1) the reports of the author referees and/or (2) my decision letter to the author. The decision letter attempts to outline the way in which the comments of the referees were used to provide the basis for the decision.