NIPS & double blind reviewing

[Neil Lawrence]

>They also included voices from the theory community,
>who told me that properly checking a proof can take days.  The author
>identity helps them to determine the rigor necessary in verifying a
>new theoretical result, because there's no way they can afford to
>spare several weeks for reviewing. I've never reviewed a lengthy proof
>myself, so I took this advice for face value. 

If a proof is so lengthy that it can take days to verify, e.g. Fermat's
last theorem, perhaps it should be submitted to a journal, because even
Andrew Wiles's proofs need rigorous checking sometimes.

Personally I am amazed, and disturbed, that reviewers are consciously
taking the author's name into account. Is this recommended practice? If
so, I suggest that it is placed in the guidelines for reviewers so that
authors are forewarned.

Neil Lawrence