Dear all
i feel that i have been speaking way too much, i promise that this is my
last post to the online conference. i am more interested in what others
think and have to say.
Speaking of the refereeing process (Sun, 15 Sep 2002), John said
"All full papers were refereed by at least two of the international
panel.
Names were removed from the documents, so that referees' judgements were
'blind'. Where there appeared to be discrepancies in the referees'
judgements, papers were further refereed by a third member of the
panel".
I have never been in a position to review papers, but from talking to
others who have, I have a sense that the idea of 'blind' refereeing is
yet another title that is misleading. My friends told me that it is
close to impossible not to know who writes the paper even when the name
is removed
1 because the author often mentions or cites his or her own work,
2 because one can tell by the work that the author cites to support his
or her ideas,
3 because one can tell by the line of work, or line of thinking
underlying the work. etc.
The idea of the 'Blind' refereeing seems to me is a product of the
'objective' scientific thinking/philosophy that is used to deny all the
personal/instituitional values, interests, feelings, emotions etc
involved during the refereeing process. And I think the so-called
'blind' refereeing practice is among many other 'traditional' practices
of organizing conferences that shoud not be taken for granted and need
to be rethought.
So I like raise the issue about rethinking conference format and its
underlying 'philosophy'. The floor is open for ideas.
So long. Rosan
--
Rosan Chow
Sessional Instructor
University of Alberta
Department of Art and Design
3-98 Fine Arts Building
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6G 2C9
Tel:1-780-492-7877
Fax: 1-780-492-7870
|