[Corpora-List] Peer Reviewing is a burning problem in linguistics

Mcenery, Tony eiaamme at exchange.lancs.ac.uk
Thu Apr 1 12:57:01 CEST 2010


I think it would be best for this list to focus on corpus linguistics - while interesting to some I am sure, there must be a better forum for discussions of issues such as 'peer review'.

________________________________

From: corpora-bounces at uib.no on behalf of Yuri Tambovtsev Sent: Thu 01/04/2010 12:12 To: corpora at uib.no Subject: [Corpora-List] Peer Reviewing is a burning problem in linguistics

Dear Corpora colleagues, I started the discussion on Peer Reviewing and I am quite happy about it. It looks that it is a burning question in linguistics. I agree with those who say that Peer Reviewing results are not satisfactory. It usually forces the author to go along the way he does not like even if the article is published with changes. Peer Reviewing makes the article more primitive and common. One should remove all innovations and new theories. It makes the article more common and not so interesting. It also makes the waiting process too long while our life is so short= Can we afford it? I feel it is a waiste of time of your life. Recently I received two reviews from Linguistica Uralica. The first reviewer wrote that that article has too much new original information and therefore the readers shall not understand it. The other reviewer wrote that there was no new information and therefore it shall not be interesting for the readers. I wonder if the editor read these two contradictory statements before sending them to me? The edotors of the great linguistics journal LANGUAGE usually answered me that my articles are not in the scope of their journal as if I wrote my articles not about languages but about how to collect potatoes in the fields. It was always so. I think they had too many areticles to get published. So they had to reject 90% articles any way. Surely, I published my articles which were rejected in other journals. I am sure the peer reviewing process must be reconsidered. The reviewers must answer for what they wrote. The only way is to open the names of the reviewers. Why should I hide my name if I gave a negative review? If I think the article is bad, then I must say it openly. Otherwise, it is not logical. Otherwise, all the speakers at conferences should also cover their faces if they want to criticize other linguists. Now that the reviewers know that their names are under cover , they write what their LEFT LEG wants. They do not answer for what they write. In courts all judges and lawyers who want to condem a criminal must also cover their faces. But they do not do it. They have great risks, but still they do not hide their names, they sign the papers with their true names. Why should the reviewer cover their names? If they really believe in what they write, they should openly say so. So, I wonder if the general linguistic public support my preposal not to let the reviewers hide their names. Looking forward to hearing from you soon to yutamb at mail.ru Yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev



More information about the Corpora mailing list