NIPS & double blind reviewing

[Jason Eisner]

> I just thought I would save everyone a bunch of time 
> by summarizing the standard arguments for and against 
> double blind refereeing.  There is no point in seeing
> it all come out piecemeal yet again.
> 
> (I know we've all seen these arguments before, but it is 
> kind of interesting to see them collected in one place.)
> ...
> I hope I haven't misrepresented these arguments
> or missed any significant ones.

Hi Dale!

Very cogent and balanced summary.  Your benefit #2, "perception of
fairness," does have a couple of other subbenefits worth mentioning:

- Grad students are much heartened by the assurance that the game is
really about research and not politics.  I can't overstate this.

- Outsiders also want this assurance -- especially outsiders from
neighboring communities where double-blind conference reviewing is so
much the norm that it seems like a basic matter of academic ethics.
While I've been on Connectionists since 1990, and often read NIPS
papers, I have never yet attended NIPS or submitted to it.  So I was
surprised to read here that NIPS does *not* use double-blind reviewing.  
It does lower the prestige I attach to a NIPS citation.

-best, jason