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

[Ted Pedersen]

To be very clear, the plagiarism checks that I run on safeassign do
not add papers to anything. They are checked against material that is
available on the public web. I have the option of retaining them in an
institutional (UMN) database for comparison with other UMN
submissions, but I do not do that. Students who submit papers can
opt-in to have their papers added to a database, but that's not what
I'm doing.

By now most plagiarism detection services are aware of concerns about
copyright, etc. and it's very possible to use them without adding
content where someone doesn't want it added. Of course this should be
verified, but it's a mistake to assume that all materials submitted to
these services are then copied and stored and made available to
others.

Anyway, I think it's very reasonable to use these services for
reviewing (and classroom use) and do so in a responsible way. They are
in fact an example of NLP in action,  which I think is nice to see.

Cordially,
Ted

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Vlado Keselj <vlado at cs.dal.ca> wrote:
>
>> > there is also the practice that some
>> > of us have of running papers we are going to review through
>> > commercial (or otherwise) plagiarism detection services.
>>
>> You may not realize it, but you do *not* have the right to do that.
>> These services retain anything you submit them, which is not something
>> you can authorize for a not-yet-published paper you don't have copyright
>> to.
>>
>> And it's extremely annoying for an author to be rejected because "that
>> has already been published", when in practice the previous version of
>> the paper has been rejected at another conference and you have enhanced
>> it since.  Incompetent reviewers that says to something has already been
>> published without giving a citation are already annoying enough as it
>> is.
>
> I would like to agree with this comment. (Thanks Galibert for expressing
> it so clearly.)  While checking for plagiarism in submitted papers is
> justified, it is alarming that a paper would be submitted to a commercial
> service, like the ones mentioned.  I do not even use them with student
> papers, for justified objections by students.
>
> I guess, one can see a positive side to it: Authors can always be happy -
> even if their paper was rejected and they did not get to contribute to the
> science in an open way, they made an anonymous contribution to the wealth
> of a company. :-)
>
> On the research side, I think that it is an interesting research problem
> to describe a model where a paper can be checked for plagiarism with an
> option of not communicating the full paper but to use only a subset of
> n-grams, or substrings in general.
> (Another solution is that a company agrees to check paper for
> plagiarism, but not to keep it in their repository.)
>
>
> Regards,
> Vlado
>



-- 
Ted Pedersen
http://www.d.umn.edu/~tpederse

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