Double-blind reviewing: more placebo than miracle cure?

Authors:
Henning Schulzrinne
Affiliations:
Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
Venue:
ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
Year:
2009

Citing 8
Cited 0

The myth of the double-blind review?: author identification using only citations

ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter
Experiences from the Sigcomm 2005 European shadow PC experiment

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
Impact of double-blind reviewing on SIGMOD publication rates

ACM SIGMOD Record
Single- versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature

ACM SIGMOD Record
You must be joking: a historic open reviewing at global internet '07

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review
Frequently-asked questions about double-blind reviewing

ACM SIGMOD Record
Reviewing the SIGCSE reviewing process

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

ACM SIGPLAN Notices

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

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.