🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Lian tells us:

I have been watching the Shao-Lin debate from afar as I do not,
unfortunately, have the time to participate in it.

He then informs us that

A careful reading of the paper as published on the Web would have revealed
that the paper was actually published in a refereed journal of the same
status as Re-CALL and similar journals of good repute. While it is true
that I am a member of the editorial board of On-CALL, this paper, like all
academic papers published in On-CALL, was submitted to a blind review
process and changes were made as a result of feedback.

**In actual fact, it is not stated anywehere that ON-CALL is a refereed
journal.  However, clearly, I should have known this and that articles are,
therefore, submitted to a blind review process by the editiorial board. I,
therefore, offer the Lians my apologies.  The fact that the article was
blind-reviewed, however, prompts the following remarks:

1.  In my initial post on this thread, I raised the issue of the refereed
status of the article and have referred to it several times.  As Andrew has
been following the thread since the beginning, I wonder why he did not
offer the clarification immediately, particularly as he is unable to allow
such an error to go by uncorrected

2.  The fact that this paper went through a blind review process raises
questions as to the composition of the editorial board.  Would Andrew or
Ania tell us how many applied linguists/SLAers are on this board?  I find
it hard to believe that any such member worth his salt would allow the
article to be published as such and this for the reasons given in my
initial post.  Just to repeat one of them.  Any of the leading applied
linguist journals would have insisted on the necessity for a review of the
relevant literature which would hopefully have addressed fundamental issues
such as the justification for the use authentic materials, previos
exploitation of "discovery learning" and approaches which give freedom to
learners to choose what they wish to learn. Or, at the very least, a
justification for not addressing such matters.

3.  The bibliography of the article also raises questions as to the blind
reviewers.  It contains about 30 items, fully half of which are authored by
one or other or both of the Lians - a less than desirable marked imbalance.
Of the other half of the items, only one is authored by an applied linguist
of any repute.  This means that both the Lians and the blind reviewers
appear to believe that apart from Lantolf's article nothing has been
published in the field of applied linguistics/SLA that has any necessary
relevance to the issues discussed in the paper.  This stretches the limits
of credibility and raises questions as to the rigour of the review process.
So much so in fact that it is possible that there was not an applied
linguist/SLAer of repute among the blind reviewers - assuming that is that
there were more than two.

4. Of the modifictions proposed by the blind reviewers, which ones were
related to applied linguistic/SLA issues?

Could Ania or Andrew tells us something of the composition of the editorial
board or tells where it is listed.  Or is there anyone on the list who can
offer such information?

Ron Sheen  U of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Canada.