[Corpora-List] why LREC2012 NOT blind-reviewed?

[amsler at cs.utexas.edu]

I too was thinking of this. I.e., with so much dissatisfaction over  
the limitations of reviewing procedures why not let the world have  
access to everything and vote on whether they like it or not. The  
primary reason against this is presumably the need for papers as  
fodder for tenure reviews--and hence the ranking of where papers are  
published as one of the criteria determining how much their  
publication is worth. Books > journals > conference papers > posters,  
etc. where online publication without the requirement of reviewer  
acceptance would come in dead last.

And one other note. One way to improve reviews, when a given reviewer  
is given a stack of papers to review, would be to have them rank the  
papers from best to worst. Ranks provide much more information than  
yes/no votes and sets of ranks can be computationally merged to arrive  
at decisions not possible from appprove/disapprove votes. It has been  
proven that if our elections were done this way, we'd be able to tap  
more of what people felt about candidates than the current scheme of  
having qualifying and run-off elections. More of the (I like X most,  
but if X couldn't win, I'd prefer Y over Z to win).



Quoting Ted Pedersen <tpederse at d.umn.edu>:

> Greetings all,
>
> Another alternative that might not have been mentioned in this far
> ranging discussion is the idea of crowd sourcing peer review. As a
> community we are now coming to rely (somewhat) on crowd sourced data,
> so why not crowd sourced reviewing? ;) I say that somewhat tongue in
> cheek, although if it's good enough for our data...
>


_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora