<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 01.10.2011 11:20, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1428CA57AA77419BAA7F9636B1A49988@ngufa28a6c2639"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Surely, it is good to abolish any
reviewers. Usually, the reviewers write what they were taught
long ago. Besides, they have no time to penetrate into the
logic construction of the report or article. So, only "grey"
products are aproved. Brilliant reports or articles are thrown
away. So, the reviewers make linguistics not brilliant. The
other thing is, why the reviewers think that they know
linguistics better? Why do they think that any other linguist
cannot distinguish a good article from a bad article? I
noticed that usually grey articles with nothing to discuss are
published. Reviewers gladly recommend the articles in which
the common and stale ideas are repeated. Please, share your
ideas on abolishing the reviewers as the hindrence of the
progress in linguistics to my e-mail addtess <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:yutamb@mail.ru">yutamb@mail.ru</a>
Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, a reviewer</font></div>
<br>
</blockquote>
Dear All,<br>
<br>
Quite interesting discussion going on on the basis of an initial
question on submission and reviewing procedures at LREC.<br>
<br>
Yuri's statement about reviewers is for sure a provocative one, but
it gives the opportunity to talk about the role of reviewers.<br>
<br>
Reviewers are in a Programme/Editorial Committee and does do not
have to decide (only) on the quality of a submission, but (also) if
the submission can contribute to the topics of a workshop (or
symposium or conference or journal etc.). So that a brilliant paper
submission might not be adequate for a specific event.<br>
<br>
Reviewers also should make comments and suggestions to the authors
of the submission, this potentially leading to reactions by the
author(s) of the submission.<br>
Reviewers are also not alone in taking decisions, and sometimes
various reviewers are discussing on one and the same submission.
This together with comments/suggestions on a submission are a kind
of "hidden" scientific discourse. Maybe something to exploit in the
future?<br>
<br>
And personally I learn a lot about what is going on in the field on
the basis of reviewing activity., also reading (interesting)
submissions that do not make it onto official publications. <br>
So that I am "voting" against Yuri's suggestion:-)<br>
<br>
Thierry<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
---
Thierry Declerck,
Senior Consultant at DFKI GmbH, Language Technology Lab
Stuhlsatzenhausweg, 3
D-66123 Saarbruecken
Phone: +49 681 / 857 75-53 58
Fax: +49 681 / 857 75-53 38
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:declerck@dfki.de">declerck@dfki.de</a>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
Firmensitz: Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern
Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
-------------------------------------------------------------
</pre>
</body>
</html>