[Corpora-List] Corpora Digest, Vol 52, Issue 5

[Viktor Pekar]

Dear all,

> 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.
>
> Robert has succintly stated the usual arguments for double blinds: (a)
> the reviewer cannot be biased by prior assumptions about the author;
> (b) the author cannot be biased by prior assumptions about the
> reviewer; (c) the author cannot retaliate.
>
>
I agree points (a) and (b) are very important, and I don't think any
arguments in favour of non-blind reviewing overweight them. As to the third
point, I think there should be more of a two-way anonymous communication
between the author and the reviewer, and conferences should explicitly
encourage authors to give feedback on the reviews they receive. One could
even imagine ratings assigned to reviewers, with conference organisers
revealing a list of most helpful reviewers at the end of the conference.
This might help to reduce those one-line reviews that you come across from
time to time.

Regards,

Viktor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111003/3e96ed07/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