[Corpora-List] Blind reviewing

[Yorick Wilks]

Very good points! 
There are clearly very good arguments both for and against blind reviewing. It may be best if both systems stay in play in different conferences and our public eventually express what they prefer.
Yorick Wilks


On 12 Oct 2011, at 12:10, Anil Singh wrote:

> I agree that this is perhaps an important point and also relevant for non-blind reviewing. I think most of the papers suggesting new ideas or radical proposasl will fall under this category and not just for the first time when they are suggested. And the more linguistics heavy the paper is, the more it is likely to be a long term thing where intermdiate results may be reported.
> 
> Then there are the system related papers where you work on large evolving systems and results can be reported on each step in the evolution process.
> 
> In most such papers hiding the identity is highly impractical and there is even going to be some overlap among the papers.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Ken Litkowski <ken at clres.com> wrote:
> This discussion has ranged over a wide set of issues, but I think some have been overlooked.
> 
> Two of the first criteria I apply in reviewing arewhethera paperis comprehensible (in English)andwhetheritrepresents a reasonably complete study. The first may indeed discriminate against those who do not natively speak English; ACL, for one, has taken steps to deal with this. The second may be due to the unrelenting annual conference schedule and is more problematic.
> 
> Two additional issues have been raised about conferences: money to attend and travel difficulties. The annual schedule may make it difficult to have a reasonable level of completeness in reporting on one's work. I don't think Graeme's indication that ACL will "publish" conference papers is sufficient to deal with these issues, although perhaps his inclusion of "other papers" might. While money and travel are important factors, I think some mechanism is needed to deal with topics that might take several years to develop. I think this is the case with my area of focus, computational lexicology, where issues may take not only years, but decades. For example, Martha Evens did groundbreaking work on semantic relations within the lexicon back in the late 70s, and this topic is still unfolding today. I think we need a mechanism whereby one can report reasonable intermediate results, with future areas of investigations. I'm sure that others on this list can come up with other areas than just the lexicon where this would be the case.
> 
> A venue for reporting emerging research might help solve the problems of money, travel, discrimination, and incompleteness, as well as provide a basis for more collaborative research.
> 
>    Ken
> 
> -- 
> Ken Litkowski                     TEL.: 301-482-0237
> CL Research                       EMAIL: ken at clres.com
> 9208 Gue Road                     Home Page: http://www.clres.com
> Damascus, MD 20872-1025 USA       Blog: http://www.clres.com/blog
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111012/dcae54b0/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