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

Fri Sep 30 17:27:46 UTC 2011

I also agree with Yorick's and Khurshid's point that academics are too busy... Too much burden on them in terms of evaluation/assessment: asked to review submission, project proposals, assess PhD theses, appraisals....
Most of us are becoming more' evaluators'  than 'creators'. I am sure that many of us are now declining all kinds of invitations to join Programme Committees, to act as reviewers etc. 
Therefore, the point of extended abstracts helping towards having less workload makes sense....The only downside is that there is no guarantee for the quality of the final product..... Is there a compromise solution? 
One way forward would be to use the idea that some funding agencies do: they review short outlines and invite full submissions only of these outlines which have been accepted....R..

-----Original Message-----
From: corpora-bounces at uib.no [mailto:corpora-bounces at uib.no] On Behalf Of Khurshid Ahmad
Sent: 30 September 2011 17:10
To: corpora at uib.no
Cc: Yorick Wilks
Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] why LREC2012 NOT blind-reviewed?

Greetings
To peer (review) or not to peer (review). Yorick's argument about academics being busy is a good one and anonymous double blind refereeing takes substantial effort on part of.  But John Sowa is right that new entrants, especially non-compliant ones, will have a very difficult time.

LREC is run by its brave pioneers in that they came up with the notion that we should think about the evaluation of language resources in the 1990s.  There is a small and perhaps remote chance that the pioneer spirit will lead to an orthodoxy.

I think those who feel confident that their name will not impede their message they may tick the box 'No blind review' and the new entrants should have right not to tick the box.

Best wishes

> I disagree strongly. I dont see why all conferences should be exactly 
> like all others. Extended abstracts are less of a burden on busy 
> academics --both as writers and reviewers----and there is no evidence 
> they lower the final quality; COLING used to do this and I am sorry it 
> changed. The whole blind-review business is a huge nonsense: I rarely 
> meet a paper to review where i cannot identify the authors from a 
> careful trawl of hidden signals and the references. Trying to make a 
> paper genuinely anonymous is almost impossible if one has a body of 
> past work and publication to link it to---the mental gymnastics required are undignified and best avoided.
> 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........
> Yorick Wilks
>
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 16:02, Eric Ringger wrote:
>
>> Greetings.
>>
>> LREC has been operated in this manner since its inception.  
>> Personally and for the sake of LREC's reputation, I would like to see 
>> the reviewing process for LREC upgraded to double-blind review.
>>
>> I believe that LREC fills a couple of important niches: its focus on 
>> language resources and evaluation/validation is important and not 
>> well served elsewhere, and it does a good job of bringing a large, 
>> diverse group together.  (I should add that it does a good job of 
>> selecting attractive venues as well!)  If implemented well, I believe 
>> that double-blind review would not detract from the primary 
>> objectives of the conference but would refine the quality of the 
>> program and improve the reputation of the venue.  I have said as much 
>> in private feedback after past LRECs.
>>
>> I also think it is time for LREC to move up from reviewing extended 
>> abstracts to reviewing full papers.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --Eric
>>
>>
>> From: corpora-bounces at uib.no [mailto:corpora-bounces at uib.no] On 
>> Behalf Of Isabella Chiari
>> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:45 AM
>> To: corpora at uib.no
>> Subject: [Corpora-List] why LREC2012 NOT blind-reviewed?
>>
>> Dear Corpora members,
>> I just noticed that the LREC2012 call specifies that submissions are 
>> NOT anonymous and there will not be blind-reviewing.
>>
>> Does anyone know why? Which is the policy under this decision?
>> Best regards,
>> Isabella Chiari
>>
>> Dipartimento di Scienze documentarie, linguistico-filologiche e 
>> geografiche
>>
>> Università di Roma "La Sapienza"
>>
>> pl.le Aldo Moro, 5, III Piano, Edificio ex Facoltà di Lettere e 
>> Filosofia, 00185 Roma, tel. +30 06 4991 3575
>>
>> E.mail: isabella.chiari at uniroma1.it
>>
>> Website: www.alphabit.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

Khurshid Ahmad

Professor of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science
Trinity College,
DUBLIN-2
IRELAND
Phone 00 353 1 896 8429

Web Page: http://people.tcd.ie/kahmad

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

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