Double-blind reviewing

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.

Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education Research

“…Norman and Griffith [108] note that it can exaggerate the weight of redundant results in meta-analyses, reduce the space available for other papers, and waste reviewer time. Schulzrinne [113] adds a few more, including authors receiving "double credit" for the same work, and listener boredom from re-runs at conferences. There might also be copyright violations [50].…”

“…While most of the research literature studied was found to be in favor of double-blind review, quite a few papers suggest that the effectiveness of blinding should not be overestimated: if it is not done carefully, the identity of the author can be revealed by self-citing [26] or proprietary software used for the research [113].…”