[Corpora-List] Blind reviewing

[Yorick Wilks]

I think my last reply covered all the points. None of my messages referred in any way to the issue of reviewer-blindness.
YW

On 12 Oct 2011, at 17:48, Laurence Anthony wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Yorick Wilks <Y.Wilks at dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm still confused. I think ACL uses a double-blind system (authors and reviewers don't know who the other is). See here:
> http://www.aclweb.org/archive/policies/current/program-committee-guide.html 
> 
> LREC uses an single-blind system (the reviewer knows the author but the author doesn't know the reviewer). See here:
> http://www.lrec-conf.org/lrec2012/?Abstract-for-Oral-or-Poster
> 
> In view of earlier comments about reviewers needing to reveal their identity, neither ACL nor LREC adopt such a policy. In fact, the LREC policy in effect gives even more power to the reviewer than a double-blind policy. Is this what you were supporting when you 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........"
> 
> Laurence.
> 
> (p.s. If it's just me that's confused, feel free to ignore me!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d1dc8ca9/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