[Corpora-List] Corpora Digest, Vol 52, Issue 3

[Yorick Wilks]

There may be a cultural difference here between countries and continents: in an ideal world a senior person getting a very penetrating and critical review from a (known) grad student or junior faculty member would probably seek to hire them--in terms of Popperian principles. Whether or not I am right about the world spread of ideal behavior---- and I think i know pretty well how it distributes, as  do we all--nothing whatever can be done about it. Which, alas, make uniform reviewing practice for international conferences very hard--as we know, and this is there we came in to the movie......
Yorick Wilks



On 2 Oct 2011, at 19:06, Robert Zimbardo wrote:

> The moment reviewer names would not be anonymous anymore, I would stop
> to review. As a young scholar, who could afford to non-anonymously
> reject a paper/abstract by [insert big name here] without fearing that
> that will backfire when application/postdoc renewal times are
> approaching? At any career level, who could afford to non-anonymously
> review a paper or book (proposal) by [insert big name here] negatively
> without fearing a negative backlash when tenure/promotion letters are
> up? Who can afford to maybe have annoyed someone who will be on an ESF
> panel and 'retaliate'? And all of this is independent of whether the
> reviewer is right or not, humans all too often retaliate even if they
> are treated 'correctly'. What other reason would there be that pretty
> much all reviews on LinguistList these days are by younger scholars
> (who want to get the books cheap) and of course positive?
> 
> AS> It seems you have not carefully read this thread and are just
> reacting in anger.
> A truly scientific and pertinent statement that you had better made
> anonymously ...
> 
> It surprises me how anyone can not see that double-blind reviewing is
> the only way to go unless one wants to run the risk of breeding
> in-groups and issuing gagging orders: it protects younger/less-known
> scholars from being categorised by 'virtue' of 'not being well-known',
> 'not being from the right country', and it protects reviewers from
> retaliation. Plus, I wonder how much the mere allegation by Yorick
> that it is so easy to recognise authors is just not a cognitive bias;
> making such an assertion does certainly not make that a fact (I
> usually just make the opposite experience) and Graeme made that point
> better than I could have. Even if some authors or reviewers were
> recognisable from their submission or review, those who are not are
> still protected and the 'undignifying' writing by not quoting oneself
> that much, cmon please ... Are people here seriously saying that
> paraphrasing two sentences and changing their precious name into
> [anonymized] is too much to protect especially younger scholars from
> bias and retaliation? Please tell me we are not that self-absorbed and
> self-confident in our we-would-never-do-that stance. Plus, could there
> be a reason they do that in most other disciplines?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
> http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora



_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora