Talk:Double-Blind Submissions
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 20:05, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 03:07, 3 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| == Starting Comments == | == Starting Comments == | ||
| - | Blind submissions hind the referee name from the authors, while ''double-blind'' submission also hind the author name from the referees (but usually author names are know at the program committee meeting. | + | Blind submissions hide the referee name from the authors, while ''double-blind'' submission also hide the author name from the referees (but usually author names are know at the program committee meeting. |
Revision as of 03:07, 3 March 2006
To add your comment to this discussion, please click the + sign tab above. Like an email message, you can then contribute:
- a subject (use subject Re: FOO to continue a discussion of FOO)
- message body
- (optionally) your name.
Starting Comments
Blind submissions hide the referee name from the authors, while double-blind submission also hide the author name from the referees (but usually author names are know at the program committee meeting.
SIGARCH
- .... I am also a strong believer in double blind submissions, as it creates a more level playing field for new professors and authors from smaller institutions.
SIGCOMM
- We do double-blind submissions at our main SIGCOMM conference but not at most (any?) of our other events. Restrictions on PC members tend not to happen, though occassionally the PC chairs will decide to impose (say) a two-paper limit, or hold PC papers to a higher bar. We tried rebuttals one time at SIGCOMM about 5-6 years ago, and it wasn't worth the substantial time and energy it required from the PC and the authors.
- Regarding effectiveness, I'm not really sure. The double-blind submission idea is admittedly a hack, but I think it does force honest people not to get lazy when doing a review (e.g., avoiding the temptation to "trust the math" when the author is a known math whiz). Often, though, the double blind process makes it hard for authors to cite prior work.
