[Corpora-List] Corpora Digest, Vol 52, Issue 3 [was blind reviewing]

[Alon Lischinsky]

On 2011/10/12 Laurence Anthony <anthony0122 at gmail.com> wrote:

> But, as I just wrote on another fragment of this
> discussion, what exactly is the alternative that people are proposing when
> double-blind reviewing is not working? Arguing that we should be following
> the LREC 2012 approach (as Yorick just stated) seems contradictory to 'many'
> (vague I know!) statements made so far, because it adopts a single-blind
> system where the authors know the names of the authors but the authors still
> don't know who is doing the review.

I don't see any intrinsic disadvantages to blinding the author's
identity. At worst, it provides no benefits (when the reviewer can
identify the author from their style or references to previous work),
but the cost incurred is minor.

What I would like to see is accountability on the part of reviewers
and editors. Peer review is, after all, a gatekeeping system. I would
like the records of the process to be as public as possible, just as
we demand public oversight of government actions, or full disclosure
of financial interests by authors. Career progression requires one to
publish, which means, that authors cannot avoid the peer review
system. Given that we are stuck with it, I say it'd be best if the
system were as open as possible.

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