[Corpora-List] why LREC2012 NOT blind-reviewed?

[Yorick Wilks]

I think one element in this issue, but not one that has been mentioned so far, to my knowledge, is that:

"I don't think anyone here is ignorant of the fact that reviewers are just peers".

is not strictly true--at least in the US--where it is quite normal for busy professors to delegate such reviews to grad students.This has, i believe, had a profound effect on reviewing culture, though Im not sure what side it tells on in the anonymity of reviews/authors disputes we have been enjoying. These students often give a lot of time to these reviews as they want to win brownie points (from their advisors) but, on the down side, they tend to know only thew locally approved NLP/CL theories and know nothing of the background of the subject beyond what is taught in their institution.

Alas, i have no positive suggestion to make about the relevance of this observation, even assuming it to be true and I, like all of us, have profited greatly over the years from thoughtful, constructive albeit critical reviews.
Yorick Wilks
  



On 2 Oct 2011, at 18:59, Anil Singh wrote:

> Following up the on the previous mails, I will take the liberty of making a constructive suggestion that is not really 'brilliant' nor very original as I believe some scientific journals already follow something similar to it:
> 
> I am not really against sharing of information about papers among conference organizers and reviewers. In fact, it could even be made a public resource in the ideal case, as Inderjeet Mani suggested.
> 
> But this sharing should be transparent and fair.
> 
> The suggestion is better divided into parts (the first part is not rare even now, but it is treated more like a formality):
> 
> a) The authors have the right to respond to the reveiws and reviewers are required to take them into account, not just ignore them as a formality (as I have seen happening). There should be at least two round of this.
> 
> b) If a paper is rejected from one venue and is sent to another, what gets sent has three parts: (i) The paper itself (ii) The reviews/recommendations/scores, and (iii) The author(s)' responses to the review and any additional explanations/clarifications they might want to add.
> 
> c) The process in b) is repeated every time the same paper is sent to yet another venue.
> 
> d) Optionally (and ideally), all this information (reveiws/replies) is made available on the venue webpage. (Why should it be confidential?)
> 
> This might not have been feasible in the hard copy days, but these days it should be easy to implement. Some extra work will be required, yes, but the 'payoff' will be much more. And if we implement d), we will have a great online scientific resource.
> 
> 
> 
> http://reviewscontd.org
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Mitkov, Ruslan <R.Mitkov at wlv.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111002/ca243cdc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora