Double-blind reviewing: more placebo than miracle cure?


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.

DOI: 10.1145/1517480.1517492

Extracted Key Phrases

Cite this paper

@article{Schulzrinne2009DoubleblindRM, title={Double-blind reviewing: more placebo than miracle cure?}, author={Henning Schulzrinne}, journal={Computer Communication Review}, year={2009}, volume={39}, pages={56-59} }