As for several anecdotal evidence against double blind (both author and reviewer) and blind reviewing (just reviewer), you can check that page too.
In order to diminish the power that reviewers have to produce harming and incompetenmte reviews, one should disclose the reviewer, or better, ask the reviewers to sign the reviews. There are several conferences and journals which do it now.
In my opinion, this is the way to go. There are too many sloppy and unethical reviewers out there, who never get caught because hidden by the anonimity protection.
But of course this may also be a community/cultural issue. Depending on the communities and their size and previous kind of interactions, different policies may work and/or be cherished by the community.
I for one have always signed my LREC reviews... as well as any review I do. This also means propbably thart I do less reviews that others, because I make it a condition to review to be able to sign... and people know it. So people keen on double blind son't invite me :)
2011/10/12 Laurence Anthony <anthony0122 at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Yorick Wilks <Y.Wilks at dcs.shef.ac.uk>
>> Thanks, I remember the details. The discussion has gone many ways, some of
>> them arguing the (de)merits of author-blind --as well as reviewer-blind
>> ---systems. The starting point was LREC and the author-blind system. Much
>> later, you wrote, after I used the phrase "both systems":
>> ".....what exactly is the alternative system to blind reviewing that is
>> being referred to in the phrase "both systems". Obviously, "against blind
>> reviewing" is not a system in itself. Am I correct in assuming that the
>> 'alternative system' being proposed on this list is simply an open one where
>> both reviewers and authors know each others' names? "
>> My "both systems" referred, as I thought was clear in the context I wrote
>> it, to author-blind and non-blind systems---ACL being like the former and
>> LREC the latter (COLING has oscillated, if memory serves). So no, the
>> opposites are those just listed. Does that clear it up?
> Sorry, I'm still confused. I think ACL uses a double-blind system (authors
> and reviewers don't know who the other is). See here:
> LREC uses an single-blind system (the reviewer knows the author but the
> author doesn't know the reviewer). See here:
> In view of earlier comments about reviewers needing to reveal their
> identity, neither ACL nor LREC adopt such a policy. In fact, the LREC policy
> in effect gives even more power to the reviewer than a double-blind policy.
> Is this what you were supporting when you wrote, "The whole blind-review
> business is a huge nonsense...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........"
> (p.s. If it's just me that's confused, feel free to ignore me!)
> UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
> Corpora mailing list
> Corpora at uib.no