Henning Schulzrinne
Abstract
In double-blind reviewing (DBR), both reviewers and authors are unaware of each others' identities and affiliations. DBR is said to increase review fairness. However, DBR may only be marginally effective in combating the randomness of the typical conference review process for highly-selective conferences. DBR may also make it more difficult to adequately review conference submissions that build on earlier work of the authors and have been partially published in workshops. I believe that DBR mainly increases the perceived fairness of the reviewing process, but that may be an important benefit. Rather than waiting until the final stages, the reviewing process needs to explicitly address the issue of workshop publications early on.
- M. Faloutsos, A. Banerjee, and R. Rejaie, "You must be joking: a historic open reviewing at Global Internet '07," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 37, pp. 79--82, July 2007. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- R. Snodgrass, "Single-versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 35, pp. 8--21, Sept. 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Madden and D. DeWitt, "Impact of double-blind reviewing on sigmod publication rates," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 35, pp. 29--32, June 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kumar, P. A. Joseph, M. Goldweber, and P. J. Wagner, "Reviewing the SIGCSE reviewing process, SIGCSE Bul letin, Vol. 40, pp. 84--89, June 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Snodgrass, "Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 36, pp. 60--62, Mar. 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. S. McKinley, "Improving publication quality by reducing bias with double-blind reviewing and author response," ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 43, Aug. 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Feldmann, "Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 35, pp. 97--102, July 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Hill and F. Provost, "The myth of the double-blind review? Author identification using only citations, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, Vol. 5, pp. 179--184, Dec. 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Double-blind reviewing: more placebo than miracle cure?
Recommendations
Double submissions: publishing misconduct or just effective dissemination?
As the community develops an ever more diverse set of venues for disseminating and discussing technical work and as the traditional resource constraints change from pages and shelf space to reviewer time, the traditional prohibition against double ...
Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates
Starting with the 2001 SIGMOD conference, the SIGMOD Chair, in consultation with the SIGMOD Advisory Committee, imposed a double blind rule on all future SIGMOD conferences. While there are many reasons why double-blind reviewing might be a good idea, ...
Lessons learned from organizing: 1995 -- 2004
SIGMIS CPR '05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on Computer personnel researchThe main objective of this panel is to provide a forum for past conference chairs, program chairs, and others, to discuss lessons learned from organizing the past 10 SIGMIS-CPR conferences and how the lessons can make future conferences even more ...
Comments