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

[Krishnamurthy, Ramesh]

I agree. Ranking, with a cut-off for 'space in this issue/quality cut-off' would be more open,
and not prevent access to non-accepted contributions.

Ramesh Krishnamurthy
Visiting Academic Fellow, School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET
Room: NX01. Tel: 0121-204-3812.
Director, ACORN (Aston Corpus Network project): http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/
Corpus Analyst:
(a) GeWiss (Volkswagen Foundation) project: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lss/research/research-projects/gewiss-spoken-academic-discourse/
(b) Discourse of Climate Change: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/lss/research/research-projects/discourse-of-climate-change-project/
(c) Feminism: http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/projects.html
(d) COMENEGO (Corpus Multilingüe de Economía y Negocios) - Multilingual Corpus of Business and Economics: http://dti.ua.es/comenego
(e) European Phraseology Project: http://labidiomas3.ua.es/phraseology/login/login.php
---------------------

Message: 3

Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:33:53 -0500

From: amsler at cs.utexas.edu<mailto:amsler at cs.utexas.edu>

Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] why LREC2012 NOT blind-reviewed?

To: corpora at uib.no<mailto:corpora at uib.no>



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).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/corpora/attachments/20111018/a5017eac/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