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

[Anil Singh]

Apparently we have a lot in common.

But you say *rejection*, whereas I say *selection* and you say double blind
reviewing *works* and I say it *doesn't work*.

If non-blind reviewing is made the norm, it could be extended to be open
reviewing, in the sense that it is not just non-blind, but the reviewing
process continues. And, to take into account what you have mentioned
(retaliation ...), *follow up, third party reviews could be allowed to be
anonymous*.

The reviews for selection/rejection are in a completely different category.
They have direct consequences. They can act as sentences (in the legal
sense). That's why they need to be fair and transparent. There are other
cases (third party, follow up reviews) which need not be signed, but if they
are visible publicly and are part of a continuing reviewing process, the
authors can always respond to them. The grad-student can still yell that the
king-professor has no clothes. And the king-professor can reply, if he
wants.

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Robert Zimbardo
<robertzimbardo at gmail.com>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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111003/064bb2a0/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