NIPS & double blind reviewing

[Glen D. Brown]

how about on the specified day, everyone post their papers on the internet
and put links (or the papers themselves) at the nips site. reviews may be
done by anyone. then use the consensus process to decide which are the
most deserving. if the group cannot decide by discussion, then a choice
voting system could be used to select the best papers.

authors could agree to review at least three papers choosen at random
within their area of expertise.

who votes? authors? + big shots? + anybody who seems qualified?

glen

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Cyril Goutte wrote:

>
>
> Dear connectionists,
>
> This seems like a good time to point to one of Luc Devroye's
> "musings":
>
> The case against blind refereeing
> http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/~luc/blindreferee.html
>
> which actually contains some amusing new arguments in addition
> to the old stuff.
>
>
> Would it be conceivable that NIPS take an innovative step in
> the opposite direction by becoming one of the first conferences
> to adopt fully open refereeing ?
> (ie publicising also referees identities)
>
>
> 	Cyril.
>
> --
> Cyril.Goutte at xrce.xerox.com               http://www.xrce.xerox.com
> Xerox Research Center Europe - 6 ch. de Maupertuis - F-38240 Meylan
>