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

[Anil Singh]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 7:32 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:

> On 10/12/2011 11:31 AM, Graeme Hirst wrote:
>
>> In addition, some ACL conferences have been experimenting with allowing
>> authors to respond to the reviewers before the final decision is made.
>>
>
> That is an important option, but it should be used with care.


I beg to disagree. I think it's too little and too ineffective. And I don't
see what could go wrong, requiring it to be used with care.


>
>  Obviously, no journal or conference would encourage an author to
>> "challenge" (as opposed to "respond to") reviewers.
>>
>
> There are some people who are very argumentative and with little or
> no justification for their position.  They should not be encouraged.
>

This is something that makes me very uneasy indeed. Saying that someone is
very argumentative is such catch-all phrase that it can be used by a group
of people to dismiss anything that a minority or an individual is arguing
for. I know where that road leads.

I should confess here that I have a reputation (in some circles) of being
very argumentative myself. As a result, in those circles, whatever I might
have to say is not heard, regardless of any evidence or arguments that I may
have to make. Which brings me to the problematic nature of the word
'argumentative' itself. Arguments themselves can to be justifications of the
position that someone takes, apart from empirical evidence and other things.
Even these other things will come wrapped up in the device that can be
called an argument. So, to defend one's position, one has to make arguments.

Now I know what you mean and the current word for that is 'troll'. I don't
like trolls myself. But in those cases it is just me who decides who is a
troll and who isn't. In cases beyond individual likes and dislikes, we can
easily find two opposing parties calling each other nothing but a bunch of
trolls. It's all over the Internet. They may call each other zombies too,
though that's a digression.  (Media calling the protesters zombies and the
protesters calling the media and the rest of the Establishment people
zombies: I know who I think is more right, but that's just me).

The question is, as usual in such cases, who decides who is a troll and who
isn't and on what basis? Of course, we will have to rely on the discretion
of the editors/P.C. Chair in our case. But this is where I would like to see
things being done very carefully so as not to render the whole thing
useless.

Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize Winner, has written a book called The
Argumentative Indian. His position is that Indians have a culture (and a
long history) of being argumentative, as evident from their scriptures,
philosophical and other kinds of treatises etc. And he means it as a
complement. I don't think that what he says is really true (only certains
kinds of Indians are argumentative in that sense, in my opinion), but that's
a different story.

I would any day prefer argumentation to suppression or censorship, even in
scientific/academic discourse, or even especially in scientific/academic
discourse, despite the fact that I have had my share of suffering at the
hands of the 'trolls' (or perhaps more than my share).

I don't know whether an apology is due for being very argumentative in this
mail (or on this thread).



> But I recall some remarks by Alfred North Whitehead about his
> teaching at Harvard.  The chairman of the department had complained
> that he was giving too many As.
>
> Whitehead replied that there were two kinds of A students in his
> grading.  Those who did everything that was asked of them in a
> well organized paper that had no detectable flaws, but was
> somewhat boring.  And those who had some exciting ideas, but
> in a presentation that was not as well organized and not as
> well supported.  He said that he had to give As to the first
> group, but that he felt the second group had better potential
> and should be encouraged.
>

I would do the same. I try to, as far as I can.


> Many papers submitted to conferences fall into these same
> categories.  Workshops that accept a higher percentage
> of submissions are often more interesting than the main
> sessions because they have more papers of the second type.
>

I agree completely.


> Perhaps some feedback from authors in the second category
> could help them get their papers into the main sessions.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/**corpora<http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora>
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no
> http://mailman.uib.no/**listinfo/corpora<http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111013/1fff5aa1/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