[Corpora-List] Blind reviewing

[Thomas Schoenemann]

Hello again,

just to clarify: I have submitted twice to CoNLL, once to IJCNLP and once to EMNLP. I never noticed the name of an area chair, but there was only 
one set of reviews where I had reason to look for it. And then, CoNLL 
and IJCNLP are probably not of utmost concern here. I think most of us 
are thinking of how to improve ACL and EMNLP. My experience with EMNLP 
was in 2010, I don't recall much now.

Regarding plagiarism: it is good that people are working on that. I for my part 
can guarantee that all of my papers solely contain ideas of the 
respective authors.

Best,
  Thomas


________________________________
Von: Thomas Schoenemann <thomas_schoenemann at yahoo.de>
An: Anil Singh <anil.phdcl at gmail.com>; Laurence Anthony <anthony0122 at gmail.com>
Cc: "corpora at uib.no" <corpora at uib.no>
Gesendet: 16:53 Donnerstag, 13.Oktober 2011 
Betreff: Re: [Corpora-List] Blind reviewing


Hello!

Once again, I would like to mention the possibility to reveal only the area chairs (I'm assuming, but not sure, that they are not known right now). I believe this would have a significant impact on what reviewers are assigned and how final decisions are made.

Best,
  Thomas


________________________________
Von: Anil Singh <anil.phdcl at gmail.com>
An: Laurence Anthony <anthony0122 at gmail.com>
Cc: corpora at uib.no
Gesendet: 16:11 Donnerstag, 13.Oktober 2011 
Betreff: Re: [Corpora-List] Blind reviewing


Yes, I though about that after sending my last mail. To accommodate 'reverse' single blind system, I would modify my list as below:


1. Open review system: The reviewer and the author both know each other's identity
2. Reverse single blind system:  Author knows who the reviewer is, but the reviewer doesn't know who the author is
3. Single blind system: Reviewer knows who the author is, but the author doesn't know who the reviewer is
4. Double blind system: Neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other's identity

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Laurence Anthony <anthony0122 at gmail.com> wrote:

>As I have made many comments on this thread, I will clearly state my position. In most contexts, I would prefer the three kinds of reviewing systems as below (in decreasing order of >preference, i.e., the first one being the most preferable):
>>
>>1. Open review system: The reviewer and the author both know each other's identity
>>2. Single blind system: Reviewer knows who the author is, but the author doesn't know who the reviewer is
>>3. Double blind system: Neither the author nor the reviewer knows the other's identity
>
>Anil,
>Thank you for clarifying the options and your own preference. Considering the many comments suggesting reviewers should reveal their names, where would you rank the following system:
>a. 'Reverse' single blind system: The author knows who the reviewer is, but the reviewer doesn't know who the author is
>
>Laurence.
>_______________________________________________
>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



_______________________________________________
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/20111014/619f261c/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