editorial

Free access

Double-blind reviewing: more placebo than miracle cure?

Author:

Henning SchulzrinneAuthors Info & Claims

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Volume 39, Issue 2

Pages 56 - 59

https://doi.org/10.1145/1517480.1517492

Published: 31 March 2009 Publication History

PDF eReader

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.

References

[1]

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.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

R. Snodgrass, "Single-versus double-blind reviewing: An analysis of the literature," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 35, pp. 8--21, Sept. 2006.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

S. Madden and D. DeWitt, "Impact of double-blind reviewing on sigmod publication rates," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 35, pp. 29--32, June 2006.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

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.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

R. Snodgrass, "Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing," SIGMOD Record, Vol. 36, pp. 60--62, Mar. 2007.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

K. S. McKinley, "Improving publication quality by reducing bias with double-blind reviewing and author response," ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 43, Aug. 2008.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

A. Feldmann, "Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment," ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 35, pp. 97--102, July 2005.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

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.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Le Pochat VJoosen W(2023)Analyzing Cyber Security Research Practices through a Meta-Research FrameworkProceedings of the 16th Cyber Security Experimentation and Test Workshop10.1145/3607505.3607523(64-74)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3607505.3607523
Shenker S(2022)Rethinking SIGCOMM's ConferencesACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review10.1145/3577929.357793352:4(26-30)Online publication date: 19-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3577929.3577933
Petre MSanders KMcCartney RAhmadzadeh MConnolly CHamouda SHarrington BLumbroso JMaguire JMalmi LMcGill MVahrenhold JRößling GKrogstie BGiannakos MSindre GLuxton-Reilly ADivitini M(2020)Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education ResearchProceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3437800.3439207(173-209)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3437800.3439207
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Double-blind reviewing: more placebo than miracle cure?
1. General and reference

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 research

The 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

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review Volume 39, Issue 2

April 2009

57 pages

ISSN:0146-4833

DOI:10.1145/1517480

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 31 March 2009

Published in SIGCOMM-CCR Volume 39, Issue 2

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Editorial

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

11
Total Citations
View Citations
419
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)30
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Le Pochat VJoosen W(2023)Analyzing Cyber Security Research Practices through a Meta-Research FrameworkProceedings of the 16th Cyber Security Experimentation and Test Workshop10.1145/3607505.3607523(64-74)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3607505.3607523
Shenker S(2022)Rethinking SIGCOMM's ConferencesACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review10.1145/3577929.357793352:4(26-30)Online publication date: 19-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3577929.3577933
Petre MSanders KMcCartney RAhmadzadeh MConnolly CHamouda SHarrington BLumbroso JMaguire JMalmi LMcGill MVahrenhold JRößling GKrogstie BGiannakos MSindre GLuxton-Reilly ADivitini M(2020)Mapping the Landscape of Peer Review in Computing Education ResearchProceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3437800.3439207(173-209)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3437800.3439207
Pradhan DChakraborty JChoudhary PNandi S(2020)An automated conflict of interest based greedy approach for conference paper assignment systemJournal of Informetrics10.1016/j.joi.2020.10102214:2(101022)Online publication date: May-2020
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101022
Cuskley CRoberts SPolitzer-Ahles SVerhoef T(2019)Double-blind reviewing and gender biases at EvoLang conferences: An updateJournal of Language Evolution10.1093/jole/lzz007Online publication date: 12-Oct-2019
https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzz007
Xia JTian DLiu YChen LWu XXu J(2017)Monitoring of Abnormal Score in Provincial Academic Degrees Dissertation and Thesis through Double-Blind Review: A Case on Shanghai2017 10th International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation (ICICTA)10.1109/ICICTA.2017.66(265-273)Online publication date: Oct-2017
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICTA.2017.66
Tomkins AZhang MHeavlin W(2017)Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer reviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences10.1073/pnas.1707323114114:48(12708-12713)Online publication date: 14-Nov-2017
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
Hoefler T(2016)Selecting Technical Papers for an Interdisciplinary ConferenceProceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing Conference10.1145/2929908.2970926(1-5)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2929908.2970926
Avin CLotker ZPeleg DTurkel I(2016)On social networks of program committeesSocial Network Analysis and Mining10.1007/s13278-016-0328-y6:1Online publication date: 8-Apr-2016
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-016-0328-y
Park MKim JChoi JLee J(2015)Fuzzy logic-based Priority Live Migration Model for EfficiencyJournal of the Korea Society for Simulation10.9709/JKSS.2015.24.4.01124:4(11-21)Online publication date: 31-Dec-2015
https://doi.org/10.9709/JKSS.2015.24.4.011
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Double submissions: publishing misconduct or just effective dissemination?

Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates

Lessons learned from organizing: 1995 -- 2004

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

PDF

eReader

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations