<font face="verdana,sans-serif">Hi All,<br><br>It is interesting how an innocent question about LREC CFP excited so many researchers. As much as I hate democracy, it seems to be the most practical one. Especially, when there is no clear answer. So, here is the poll. You can consider it a secret ballot, or leave a comment to identify yourself.<br>
<br><a href="http://sjonnalagadda.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/reviewing-poll/">http://sjonnalagadda.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/reviewing-poll/</a><br>To make sure the opinion comes from interested parties only, it is password protected. The password is the most obvious one: a lowercase word for collections of texts (usually annotated). I'm interested to see what the numbers suggest.<br>
<br clear="all"></font><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Sincerely,</span><br style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Siddhartha Jonnalagadda, </span>Ph.D.<br style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></span><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></span><a style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif" href="http://sjonnalagadda.wordpress.com" target="_blank"></a><br style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Diana Santos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dianamsmpsantos@gmail.com">dianamsmpsantos@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Dear Laurence,<br>
I believe -- with others -- that the best system is a double-open<br>
system, as I campaigned for some years ago.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.linguateca.pt/Diana/SignedReviews.html" target="_blank">http://www.linguateca.pt/Diana/SignedReviews.html</a><br>
<br>
As for several anecdotal evidence against double blind (both author<br>
and reviewer) and blind reviewing (just reviewer), you can check that<br>
page too.<br>
<br>
In order to diminish the power that reviewers have to produce harming<br>
and incompetenmte reviews, one should disclose the reviewer, or<br>
better, ask the reviewers to sign the reviews.<br>
There are several conferences and journals which do it now.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, this is the way to go. There are too many sloppy and<br>
unethical reviewers out there, who never get caught because hidden by<br>
the anonimity protection.<br>
<br>
But of course this may also be a community/cultural issue. Depending<br>
on the communities and their size and previous kind of interactions,<br>
different policies may work and/or be cherished by the community.<br>
<br>
I for one have always signed my LREC reviews... as well as any review<br>
I do. This also means propbably thart I do less reviews that others,<br>
because I make it a condition to review to be able to sign... and<br>
people know it. So people keen on double blind son't invite me :)<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Diana<br>
<br>
2011/10/12 Laurence Anthony <<a href="mailto:anthony0122@gmail.com">anthony0122@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Yorick Wilks <<a href="mailto:Y.Wilks@dcs.shef.ac.uk">Y.Wilks@dcs.shef.ac.uk</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks, I remember the details. The discussion has gone many ways, some of<br>
>> them arguing the (de)merits of author-blind --as well as reviewer-blind<br>
>> ---systems. The starting point was LREC and the author-blind system. Much<br>
>> later, you wrote, after I used the phrase "both systems":<br>
>> ".....what exactly is the alternative system to blind reviewing that is<br>
>> being referred to in the phrase "both systems". Obviously, "against blind<br>
>> reviewing" is not a system in itself. Am I correct in assuming that the<br>
>> 'alternative system' being proposed on this list is simply an open one where<br>
>> both reviewers and authors know each others' names? "<br>
>> My "both systems" referred, as I thought was clear in the context I wrote<br>
>> it, to author-blind and non-blind systems---ACL being like the former and<br>
>> LREC the latter (COLING has oscillated, if memory serves). So no, the<br>
>> opposites are those just listed. Does that clear it up?<br>
>> YW<br>
><br>
> Sorry, I'm still confused. I think ACL uses a double-blind system (authors<br>
> and reviewers don't know who the other is). See here:<br>
> <a href="http://www.aclweb.org/archive/policies/current/program-committee-guide.html" target="_blank">http://www.aclweb.org/archive/policies/current/program-committee-guide.html</a><br>
> LREC uses an single-blind system (the reviewer knows the author but the<br>
> author doesn't know the reviewer). See here:<br>
> <a href="http://www.lrec-conf.org/lrec2012/?Abstract-for-Oral-or-Poster" target="_blank">http://www.lrec-conf.org/lrec2012/?Abstract-for-Oral-or-Poster</a><br>
> In view of earlier comments about reviewers needing to reveal their<br>
> identity, neither ACL nor LREC adopt such a policy. In fact, the LREC policy<br>
> in effect gives even more power to the reviewer than a double-blind policy.<br>
> Is this what you were supporting when you wrote, "The whole blind-review<br>
> business is a huge nonsense...LRECs reputation has grown steadily and it<br>
> will be the quality of its papers that sustain it--there is no evidence at<br>
> all anonymity would improve matters in the least. if it ain't broke........"<br>
> Laurence.<br>
> (p.s. If it's just me that's confused, feel free to ignore me!)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: <a href="http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora</a><br>
> Corpora mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no">Corpora@uib.no</a><br>
> <a href="http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: <a href="http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora</a><br>
Corpora mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Corpora@uib.no">Corpora@uib.no</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora" target="_blank">http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>