[Corpora-List] Blind reviewing

[Yorick Wilks]

Thanks, I remember the details. The discussion has gone many ways, some of them arguing the (de)merits of  author-blind --as well as reviewer-blind ---systems. The starting point was LREC and the author-blind system.  Much later, you wrote, after I used the phrase "both systems":
".....what exactly is the alternative system to blind reviewing that is being referred to in the phrase "both systems". Obviously, "against blind reviewing" is not a system in itself. Am I correct in assuming that the 'alternative system' being proposed on this list is simply an open one where both reviewers and authors know each others' names? "
My "both systems" referred, as I thought was clear in the context I wrote it, to author-blind and non-blind systems---ACL being like the former and LREC the latter (COLING has oscillated, if memory serves). So no, the opposites are those just listed. Does that clear it up?
YW


On 12 Oct 2011, at 17:11, Laurence Anthony wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Yorick Wilks <Y.Wilks at dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
> You have to start from the beginning of the thread--the topic was the LREC system of non-blind abstracts for review.
> YW
> 
> 
> 
> This discussion started with Isabella Chiari commenting that LREC 2012 were submissions are NOT anonymous and asking why?
> 
> Then, Eric Ringger wrote "I would like to see the reviewing process for LREC upgraded to double-blind review."
> 
> Then, you (Yorick Wilks) wrote: "The whole blind-review business is a huge nonsense...LRECs reputation has grown steadily and it will be the quality of its papers that sustain it--there is no evidence at all anonymity would improve matters in the least. if it ain't broke........"
> 
> And from this point on, I think the whole discusison was more on the merits and demerits of the double-blind system. People arguing against the double-blind system seemed to be proposing that reviewers names should be revealed to authors. But, I don't think this is what LREC 2012 is doing. They have a single blind system, meaning that the reviewers know who the authors are, but the authors don't know who the reviewers are.
> 
> Is this the system that the opponents to the double-blind system are saying is better??? If so, it seems contradictory to many of the earlier statements.
> 
> Laurence.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a46383bc/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