<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I think my last reply covered all the points. None of my messages referred in any way to the issue of reviewer-blindness.<div>YW</div><div><br><div><div>On 12 Oct 2011, at 17:48, Laurence Anthony wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Yorick Wilks <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Y.Wilks@dcs.shef.ac.uk">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">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></blockquote><div><br></div>Sorry, I'm still confused. I think ACL uses a double-blind system (authors and reviewers don't know who the other is). See here:<div><a href="http://www.aclweb.org/archive/policies/current/program-committee-guide.html">http://www.aclweb.org/archive/policies/current/program-committee-guide.html</a> </div>
<div><br></div><div>LREC uses an single-blind system (the reviewer knows the author but the author doesn't know the reviewer). See here:</div><div><a href="http://www.lrec-conf.org/lrec2012/?Abstract-for-Oral-or-Poster">http://www.lrec-conf.org/lrec2012/?Abstract-for-Oral-or-Poster</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>In view of earlier comments about reviewers needing to reveal their identity, neither ACL nor LREC adopt such a policy. In fact, the LREC policy in effect gives even more power to the reviewer than a double-blind policy. Is this what you were supporting when you wrote, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> "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........"</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Laurence.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>(p.s. If it's just me that's confused, feel free to ignore me!)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></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>