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

[Krishnamurthy, Ramesh]

Before changing any reviewing system, why do conferences and journals not publish annual lists of
papers accepted and papers rejected. If any patterns of discrimination or prejudice are noticed,
this could lead to data- and case-based discussions?

Ramesh Krishnamurthy
Visiting Academic Fellow, School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET
Room: NX01. Tel: 0121-204-3812.
Director, ACORN (Aston Corpus Network project): http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/
Corpus Analyst:
(a) GeWiss (Volkswagen Foundation) project: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lss/research/research-projects/gewiss-spoken-academic-discourse/
(b) Discourse of Climate Change: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lss/research/research-projects/discourse-of-climate-change-project/
(c) Feminism: http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/projects.html
(d) COMENEGO (Corpus Multilingüe de Economía y Negocios) - Multilingual Corpus of Business and Economics: http://dti.ua.es/comenego
(e) European Phraseology Project: http://labidiomas3.ua.es/phraseology/login/login.php

-----------------------------------

Message: 1

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:44:58 +0200

From: Alon Lischinsky <alon.lischinsky at kultmed.umu.se<mailto:alon.lischinsky at kultmed.umu.se>>

Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] Corpora Digest, Vol 52,   Issue 3 [was blind

      reviewing]

To: Laurence Anthony <anthony0122 at gmail.com<mailto:anthony0122 at gmail.com>>

Cc: Corpora Mailing List <corpora at uib.no<mailto:corpora at uib.no>>



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111013/4bfd7f45/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