[e2e] double bland reviewing

[Kostas Pentikousis]

Dear Jon,

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Jon Crowcroft wrote:

|so certain conferences have a tradition of double blind
|submission/review process to minimse the effect of

... which means absolutely nothing about the quality of accepted
papers: peer review is an unreliable quality control mechanism.

Hurt? Read Juan Miguel Campanario's papers on "Peer review for
journals as it stands today" (well, actually 1998):
http://www2.uah.es/jmc/papers2.html

Heck, even Floyd has rejected papers
(http://www.icir.org/floyd/rejected_question.html)

<snip>

|these are not necessarily bad things, except for the
|iii) "brand recognition effect"

Even without tricks like TRs, double-blind is not bulletproof.
Depending whom you ask, reviewers can figure out correctly the true
identity nearly 40% of the time. In addition, "blinding is most
effective for lesser known authors." And you thought you had
complains? ;)

|how about we setup a parallel list to e2e, which is closed
|member-only submission, but anonimyzed.

Before you get started, please survey what other people have _done_
already. Hint: Alexander Hars' "From publishing to knowledge
networks", Springer 2003

Best regards,

Kostas
__________________________________________________________________
Kostas Pentikousis                   www.cs.stonybrook.edu/~kostas