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

[Alberto Simões]

In fact, I am concerned by the fact that LREC is blind reviewed in the 
reviewer side.

If somebody is commenting a paper, he/she should be responsible for what 
he/she says, and therefore, sign his/her review.

Although we are not forced to do that in LREC, I always sign my 
comments. And trust me, I already wrote some drastic reviews (got lot of 
people thanking the review, nobody complaining about it).

My two cents.
Alberto

On 30/09/2011 17:13, Isabella.Chiari at uniroma1.it wrote:
> I never noticed the fact that LREC did not use blind-reviewing. Maybe
> because in this call is particularly evident, that's why I asked.
>
> I personally like long abstract submission (and evaluation) rather than
> full paper. But I am not so convinced by non-anonymous submission. It
> true that it requires unnatural writing practices, but it certainly
> helps the reading and evaluating process. As a reviewer I do not feel
> very confortable with the name of the author on the abstract because it
> is very difficult to be completely objective expecially if it is someone
> you know. I think it may interfere (positively, rather than negatively
> on acceptace). But I do not know if this opinion is shared.
>
> It is also true that this problem is felt in small calls, rather than in
> big conferences like LREC.
> Best regards,
> Isabella
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:48, "Diana Maynard" <d.maynard at dcs.shef.ac.uk
> <mailto:d.maynard at dcs.shef.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>> Agreed - and a lot of conferences these days actually seem to be moving
>> AWAY from blind reviewing (for exactly the reasons that Yorick mentions).
>> Diana
>>
>> On 30/09/11 16:27, Yorick Wilks wrote:
>> >  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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page:http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
>> Corpora mailing list
>> Corpora at uib.no  <mailto: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

-- 
Alberto Simoes
CEHUM

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