Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing

Snodgrass, Richard T.

doi:10.1145/1276301.1276317

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He concludes that DBR is still more prevalent in the social sciences than in computer science, despite its beneficial effect and the assumed low costs for a transition. As a result, Snodgrass maintains a document of frequently asked questions and answers regarding DBR [25].…”

Section: A Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Double-blind review in software engineering venues

Beller

Bacchelli

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The peer review process is central to the scientific method, the advancement and spread of research, as well as crucial for individual careers. However, the single-blind review mode currently used in most Software Engineering (SE) venues is susceptible to apparent and hidden biases, since reviewers know the identity of authors. We perform a study on the benefits and costs that are associated with introducing double- blind review in SE venues. We surveyed the SE community’s opinion and interviewed experts on double-blind reviewing. Our results indicate that the costs, mostly logistic challenges and side effects, outnumber its benefits and mostly regard difficulty for authors in blinding papers, for reviewers in understanding the increment with respect to previous work from the same authors, and for organizers to manage a complex transition. While the surveyed community largely consents on the costs of DBR, only less than one-third disagree with a switch to DBR for SE journals, all SE conferences, and, in particular, ICSE; the analysis of a survey with authors of submitted papers at ICSE 2016 run by the program chairs of that edition corroborates our result.

show abstract

Section: A Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Double-blind review in software engineering venues

Beller

Bacchelli

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted, one oft-cited advantage [2,5] is the perception of fairness that is helped by DBR. However, the SIGCOMM conference regularly attracts criticism that certain authors or institutions have a leg up, despite having used DBR for many years.…”

Section: Then What's the Problem?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ACM Transactions on Database Systems [5] provides some rules. Obviously, the paper under review should not list any authors and institutions, and should omit any "incriminating" acknowledgements and avoid revealing filenames.…”

Section: Implementing Double-blind Re-views Effectivelymentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-blind reviewing

Schulzrinne

2009

SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Snodgrass presents a number of objections and frequently asked questions about double-blind reviewing, which I recommend reading [5]. I discuss three objections.…”

Section: Objections To Double-blindmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving publication quality by reducing bias with double-blind reviewing and author response

McKinley

2008

SIGPLAN Not.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Double-blind review in software engineering venues

Double-blind review in software engineering venues

Double-blind reviewing

Improving publication quality by reducing bias with double-blind reviewing and author response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About