Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Effectiveness of Anonymization in Double-Blind Review

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1709.01609 v1 pith:ZVBHWSEU submitted 2017-09-05 cs.DL cs.GLcs.SE

Effectiveness of Anonymization in Double-Blind Review

classification cs.DL cs.GLcs.SE
keywords double-blindguessreviewanonymizationauthoreffectivenessidentitieslikely
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.