<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">They are not symmetrical forms of knowing. All proposals--or all I know--are reviewed knowing who wrote them, but the writers do not know who reviewed them. This is thought normal--though I personally never mind being identified as a reviewer. I dont see why it has to be different for papers rather than proposals, especially as the latter are often more career-significant. And, as I said, earlier: we usually DO know who wrote anonymised papers, so it's all fake anyway.<div>YW</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, Alexander Osherenko wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Maybe, a blind-review can be understood as some sort of justice. I "don't" know the authors, so it is fair that the authors don't know who is reviewing my paper. Otherwise, everybody knew who says: "I never saw anybody do anything like that before."<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/9/30 John F. Sowa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sowa@bestweb.net">sowa@bestweb.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 9/30/2011 11:27 AM, Yorick Wilks wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The whole blind-review business is a huge nonsense: I rarely meet a<br>
paper to review where i cannot identify the authors from a careful trawl<br>
of hidden signals and the references. Trying to make a paper genuinely<br>
anonymous is almost impossible if one has a body of past work and<br>
publication to link it to---the mental gymnastics required are<br>
undignified and best avoided. LRECs reputation has grown steadily and it<br>
will be the quality of its papers that sustain it--there is no evidence<br>
at all anonymity would improve matters in the least.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I agree.<br>
<br>
I would also add another point about the reviewing process: most papers<br>
are reviewed by people who work in the same paradigm. Inevitably, they<br>
give higher scores to papers that conform to their favorite paradigm.<br>
<br>
A colleague of mine received the following *negative* comment about<br>
a paper submitted to a major conference:<br>
<br>
"I never saw anybody do anything like that before."<br>
<br>
Fortunately, the paper slipped through the cracks and was accepted<br>
despite that review. It ended up as a widely cited "minor classic".<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
John</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: <a href="http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/options/<u></u>corpora</a><br>
Corpora mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no" target="_blank">Corpora@uib.no</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/<u></u>listinfo/corpora</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: <a href="http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora">http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora</a><br>Corpora mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no">Corpora@uib.no</a><br>http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>