[Corpora-List] corpora-list: publishing lists of accepted and rejected papers

[Alon Lischinsky]

On 2011/10/17 Patrick Paroubek <pap at limsi.fr> wrote:

> Concerning the disclosure of information about the applications, the
> question is where do you stop? A simple ranking is not very informative,
> since there are so many different factors involved. Some people might then
> feel that a short text from the expert committee justifying each ranking
> ought to made public, exactly like when you submit a paper.

That is exactly what I meant by an 'annotated ranking': not only the
relative ranks, but the committee's justification for this ranking,
presented quite objectively as a measure of fit with the required and
desired skills in the job description.

> And that could generate as much controversy as the non-disclosure solution.

I haven't found it to be controversial in practice, but even if it
were, full disclosure allows everyone to assess the accuracy and
rationale of the ranking.

> The publication of statistics on the paper published raises already enough
> controveries in the world of science whithout adding the possibility to create
> more by giving the means to people to generate statistics on the near misses
> at job applications.

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. What is exactly your claim
about statistics?

A.

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