<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3527" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Sorry Adam, not only I do not share it, as I am an
enthusiast about this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This is the only effective way to prevent people doing
dishonest, careless or uninformed reviews and getting away with it.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Except if one accepts the principle of Signed Reviews
(</FONT><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><A
href="http://www.linguateca.pt/Diana/SignedReviews.html">http://www.linguateca.pt/Diana/SignedReviews.html</A></FONT></SPAN><FONT
face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=925070309-29052009></SPAN>), but this may have other
consequences.</FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I suggest you read </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>Chubin,
D. R. & E. J. Hackett. <I>Peerless Science, Peer Review and U.S. Science
Policy</I>. New York, State University of New York Press. 1990.
</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>for a debate and some suggestions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>For those of you who read Portuguese, I have a page on
these issues as well, with some further references: <A
href="http://www.linguateca.pt/Diana/avalpubl.html">http://www.linguateca.pt/Diana/avalpubl.html</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Best,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Diana</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=925070309-29052009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> corpora-bounces@uib.no
[mailto:corpora-bounces@uib.no] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Adam
Kilgarriff<BR><B>Sent:</B> 29. mai 2009 10:47<BR><B>To:</B>
corpora@uib.no<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Corpora-List] Against the reviewer
mediation stage<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Corpora readers,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Do any of you share my feeling about the 'review mediation
phase'?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do reviewing partly out of duty and partly because it's a way of making
sure I read closely at least one arbitrary subset of new work in my area
- and sometimes I find out about really interesting work in this
way. I do like the innovation of being able to bid for the papers you
actively want to review.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But an innovation I don't like is the 'review mediation process', as now
widely used by ACL and EMNLP where, if two reviewers disagree, they are
expected to contribute to a discussion where they see if they can reconcile
their differences. The image is very nice - academics sitting down to
sort out their differences etc., but the reality is (for me) quite
different. I reviewed the paper maybe three weeks ago and (at this
frenetic time of year) have probably reviewed half a dozen other papers
between times. To make a considered comment, I need to take my time to
re-acquaint myself with the paper, remind myself of what I said in my review,
give careful thought to the other reviewers' comments, and work out how
to respond, which involves delicate processes (with both interpersonal and
intellectual components) of standing up for my considered opinion while
giving due heed to what others have said (and being polite even if I think the
other person's opinion is rubbish - no anonymity here). One good thing
about initial reviewing is that you can do it in your own time. But
that's not true for review mediation, because there are only two or three days
allocated to that phase. And here I am expected to devote as much time
again to it as I did to the original version, and there's nothing in it for
me, as I've already read it so I won't find any new ideas.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think the reviewer mediation phase should be scrapped. Either use
maths to merge reviewers' scores, or if the chair thinks that would not get a
good result in a particular case, let him/her read and decide. That's
his/her job.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Adam<BR clear=all></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><BR>-- <BR>================================================<BR>Adam
Kilgarriff
<A
href="http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk">http://www.kilgarriff.co.uk</A>
<BR>Lexical Computing Ltd
<A
href="http://www.sketchengine.co.uk">http://www.sketchengine.co.uk</A><BR>Lexicography
MasterClass Ltd <A
href="http://www.lexmasterclass.com">http://www.lexmasterclass.com</A><BR>Universities
of Leeds and Sussex <A
href="mailto:adam@lexmasterclass.com">adam@lexmasterclass.com</A><BR>================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>