Create a "standard" for novel or other methods

[drpaulralph]

We need some kind of recommendations for reviewing a method for which there is no existing standard, such that a reviewer can click "other" in the reviewer checklist generator and still get some kind of sensible advice beyond the general standard.

[timm]

• things you ll are currently missing are "errata papers" and "vision papers" and "none of the above"

[drpaulralph]

This issue is for the none-of-the-above standard. We're making a list of other needed standards here: https://github.com/acmsigsoft/EmpiricalStandards/discussions/23