[Corpora-List] Vote/Comment on your choice of review

Wed Oct 12 18:50:02 UTC 2011

Hi All,

It is interesting how an innocent question about LREC CFP excited so many
researchers. As much as I hate democracy, it seems to be the most practical
one. Especially, when there is no clear answer. So, here is the poll. You
can consider it a secret ballot, or leave a comment to identify yourself.

http://sjonnalagadda.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/reviewing-poll/
To make sure the opinion comes from interested parties only, it is password
protected. The password is the most obvious one: a lowercase word for
collections of texts (usually annotated). I'm interested to see what the
numbers suggest.

Sincerely,
Siddhartha Jonnalagadda, Ph.D.
 <http://sjonnalagadda.wordpress.com>

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Diana Santos <dianamsmpsantos at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Laurence,
> I believe -- with others -- that the best system is a double-open
> system, as I campaigned for some years ago.
>
> http://www.linguateca.pt/Diana/SignedReviews.html
>
> As for several anecdotal evidence against double blind (both author
> and reviewer) and blind reviewing (just reviewer), you can check that
> page too.
>
> In order to diminish the power that reviewers have to produce harming
> and incompetenmte reviews, one should disclose the reviewer, or
> better, ask the reviewers to sign the reviews.
> There are several conferences and journals which do it now.
>
> In my opinion, this is the way to go. There are too many sloppy and
> unethical reviewers out there, who never get caught because hidden by
> the anonimity protection.
>
> But of course this may also be a community/cultural issue. Depending
> on the communities and their size and previous kind of interactions,
> different policies may work and/or be cherished by the community.
>
> I for one have always signed my LREC reviews... as well as any review
> I do. This also means propbably thart I do less reviews that others,
> because I make it a condition to review to be able to sign... and
> people know it. So people keen on double blind son't invite me :)
>
> Best,
> Diana
>
> 2011/10/12 Laurence Anthony <anthony0122 at gmail.com>:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111012/74c117b9/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