NIPS & double blind reviewing

[tbreuel@parc.com]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 02:03:37PM -0800, Grace Wahba wrote:
> Have you ever tried to write a paper without giving any 
> clue to your identity? 

I try to write all my papers that way.

> ("In xxx we proved yyy and in this paper we extend those results"). 

You presumably cite papers by other authors all the time without using
personal pronouns.  So, you can treat reference "xxx" the way you would
treat it as if it had been written by any other author:

    "Xxx proved yyy.  This paper extends those results."

What need is there to indicate, in addition to this, that
you personally were the author of the paper that proved "yyy"?

> Furthermore, many (most?) people submitting to 
> NIPS put their paper on their home page and even circulate
> it on this list, so a reviewer would have no trouble 
> finding out who the author was by using, for instance, 
> google. 

Well, blind review isn't always possible, but in some disciplines
and publications, undermining blind review unnecessarily may lead to
rejection.  This might be the use of phrases like "In xxx we proved
yyy" or putting a draft copy of a paper on a public web site or some
other action.  And a reviewer that knows who the author of a paper is
may be expected to excuse himself.

> I fail to see any positives to blind  reviewing 
> and a lot of negatives. 

Open reviewing is clearly fine for workshops or conferences that aren't
very competitive.  But many long-established academic disciplines have
decided that blind reviewing is necessary for key conferences or journals,
even though it isn't perfect and even though it is more work.  I think
NIPS may have reached the level of importance where blind reviewing
may be desirable.

Thomas.