Effectiveness of Anonymization in Double-Blind Review

September 05, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Communications of the ACM

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Claire Le Goues, Yuriy Brun, Sven Apel, Emery Berger, Sarfraz Khurshid, Yannis Smaragdakis arXiv ID 1709.01609 Category cs.DL: Digital Libraries Cross-listed cs.GL, cs.SE Citations 42 Venue Communications of the ACM Last Checked 6 months ago
Abstract
Double-blind review relies on the authors' ability and willingness to effectively anonymize their submissions. We explore anonymization effectiveness at ASE 2016, OOPSLA 2016, and PLDI 2016 by asking reviewers if they can guess author identities. We find that 74%-90% of reviews contain no correct guess and that reviewers who self-identify as experts on a paper's topic are more likely to attempt to guess, but no more likely to guess correctly. We present our findings, summarize the PC chairs' comments about administering double-blind review, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of revealing author identities part of the way through the process, and conclude by advocating for the continued use of double-blind review.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Digital Libraries

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted