15.242, Disc: Re: Blind Peer Review

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-15-242. Thu Jan 22 2004. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 15.242, Disc: Re: Blind Peer Review

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Sheila Collberg, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Sarah Murray <sarah at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:21:42 -0000
From:  "Spencer, Andrew J" <spena at essex.ac.uk>
Subject:  peer reviewing system

2)
Date:  Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:26:09 -0500
From:  Susana Sotillo <sotillos at mail.montclair.edu>
Subject:  About Journals and Independent Journal Evaluation

3)
Date:  Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:38:37 -0500 (EST)
From:  Felecia  Briscoe <fbriscoe at utsa.edu>
Subject:  Blind Peer Reviews

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:21:42 -0000
From:  "Spencer, Andrew J" <spena at essex.ac.uk>
Subject:  peer reviewing system


A brief comment arising from the postings by Ronals Sheen and Martin
Haspelmath. The pro's and con's of blind peer reviewing are a lively
topic of debate in other disciplines, for instance, the natural
sciences. Virtually every month some issue of the (weekly) journal
'Nature' seems to contain correspondence or editorial comment on the
matter. Physicists and biologists in particular are sufficiently
concerned about the perceived problems with peer reviewing that they
have set up or are contemplating unrefereed web-based journal
publishing. I think that any debate about this topic in the context of
linguistics should begin with a survey of what other disciplines think
about this. My understanding of the matter is that it's relatively
clear what the problems are but far from clear what the best solutions
are.

Andrew Spencer


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:26:09 -0500
From:  Susana Sotillo <sotillos at mail.montclair.edu>
Subject:  About Journals and Independent Journal Evaluation


I believe that physicists and biologists have faced similar problems.
I read Joao Magueijo's account of the peer review process in Physics,
among other things (Faster than the Speed of Light).  Very
interesting! Most scientists are opting for online journals.

-Susana Sotillo


-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:38:37 -0500 (EST)
From:  Felecia  Briscoe <fbriscoe at utsa.edu>
Subject:  Blind Peer Reviews


Re:  Haspelmath, Linguist 15.182

I agree about the unnecessarily long peer review process.  My other
concern is why people are not allowed to submit to more than one
journal at a time.  It would seen in the interest of maintaining equal
power relations that we should have the opportunity to say ''no'' to a
journal just as the journal has the opportunity to say ''no'' to us.

-Felecia  Briscoe

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-15-242