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

Thu Oct 13 20:43:10 UTC 2011

Let the votes speak:

[image: Capture.PNG]

Sincerely,
Siddhartha Jonnalagadda, Ph.D.
sjonnalagadda.wordpress.com

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Siddhartha Jonnalagadda
<sid.kgp at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20111013/f7a58396/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Capture.PNG
Type: image/png
Size: 19099 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111013/f7a58396/attachment.png>
-------------- 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