<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I never noticed the fact that LREC did not use blind-reviewing. Maybe because in this call is particularly evident, that's why I asked.</div><div><br></div><div>I personally like long abstract submission (and evaluation) rather than full paper. But I am not so convinced by non-anonymous submission. It true that it requires unnatural writing practices, but it certainly helps the reading and evaluating process. As a reviewer I do not feel very confortable with the name of the author on the abstract because it is very difficult to be completely objective expecially if it is someone you know. I think it may interfere (positively, rather than negatively on acceptace). But I do not know if this opinion is shared.</div><div><br></div><div>It is also true that this problem is felt in small calls, rather than in big conferences like LREC.</div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Isabella</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:48, "Diana Maynard" <<a href="mailto:d.maynard@dcs.shef.ac.uk">d.maynard@dcs.shef.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><style type="text/css">pre { white-space: pre-wrap }</style>
<pre>Agreed - and a lot of conferences these days actually seem to be moving
AWAY from blind reviewing (for exactly the reasons that Yorick mentions).
Diana
On 30/09/11 16:27, Yorick Wilks wrote:
> I disagree strongly. I dont see why all conferences should be exactly
> like all others. Extended abstracts are less of a burden on busy
> academics --both as writers and reviewers----and there is no evidence
> they lower the final quality; COLING used to do this and I am sorry it
> changed. The whole blind-review business is a huge nonsense: I rarely
> meet a paper to review where i cannot identify the authors from a
> careful trawl of hidden signals and the references. Trying to make a
> paper genuinely anonymous is almost impossible if one has a body of past
> work and publication to link it to---the mental gymnastics required are
> undignified and best avoided. LRECs reputation has grown steadily and it
> will be the quality of its papers that sustain it--there is no evidence
> at all anonymity would improve matters in the least. if it ain't
> broke........
> Yorick Wilks
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: <a href="http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora">http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora</a>
Corpora mailing list
<a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no">Corpora@uib.no</a>
<a href="http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora">http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora</a>
</pre></div></blockquote></body></html>