<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Thanks, I remember the details. The discussion has gone many ways, some of them arguing the (de)merits of author-blind --as well as reviewer-blind ---systems. The starting point was LREC and the author-blind system. Much later, you wrote, after I used the phrase "both systems":<div>".....what exactly is the alternative system to blind reviewing that is being referred to in the phrase "both systems". Obviously, "against blind reviewing" is not a system in itself. Am I correct in assuming that the 'alternative system' being proposed on this list is simply an open one where both reviewers and authors know each others' names? "</div><div>My "both systems" referred, as I thought was clear in the context I wrote it, to author-blind and non-blind systems---ACL being like the former and LREC the latter (COLING has oscillated, if memory serves). So no, the opposites are those just listed. Does that clear it up?</div><div>YW</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On 12 Oct 2011, at 17:11, Laurence Anthony wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Yorick Wilks <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Y.Wilks@dcs.shef.ac.uk" target="_blank">Y.Wilks@dcs.shef.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">You have to start from the beginning of the thread--the topic was the LREC system of non-blind abstracts for review.<div>YW</div><div><font color="#888888"><br></font><div><div><div></div>
<div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>This discussion started with Isabella Chiari commenting that LREC 2012 were submissions are NOT anonymous and asking why?</div><div>
<br></div><div>Then, Eric Ringger wrote "I would like to see the reviewing process for LREC upgraded to double-blind review."</div><div><br></div><div>Then, you (Yorick Wilks) wrote: "The whole blind-review business is a huge nonsense...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........"</div>
<div><br></div><div>And from this point on, I think the whole discusison was more on the merits and demerits of the double-blind system. People arguing against the double-blind system seemed to be proposing that reviewers names should be revealed to authors. But, I don't think this is what LREC 2012 is doing. They have a single blind system, meaning that the reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors don't know who the reviewers are.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is this the system that the opponents to the double-blind system are saying is better??? If so, it seems contradictory to many of the earlier statements.</div><div><br></div><div>Laurence.</div><div><br>
</div></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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>