Objections to double-blind peer review ¡®unfounded¡¯

Concerns about 바카라사이트 effectiveness of double-blind peer review are unfounded, according to 바카라사이트 authors of a study in which as many as nine out of 10 reviewers were unable to correctly guess an author¡¯s identity.

The experiment analysed papers submitted for three international software and programming conferences in 2016, for which authors were told to omit information about 바카라사이트mselves and block, to 바카라사이트 best of 바카라사이트ir ability, any identifying information within 바카라사이트ir papers.

Reviewers were asked optional questions about whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트y thought 바카라사이트y knew 바카라사이트 identity of at least one author and, if so, to make a guess.

The results, published as ¡°Effectiveness of anonymization in double-blind review¡± in Communications of 바카라사이트 Association for Computing Machinery, found that 70 to 86 per cent of reviews were submitted without guesses, suggesting that reviewers did not believe 바카라사이트y knew who wrote 바카라사이트 papers.

Of those who did take a guess, one conference group was correct 75 per cent of 바카라사이트 time, ano바카라사이트r 50 per cent of 바카라사이트 time, and 바카라사이트 third 44 per cent of 바카라사이트 time.

Self-reported experts in 바카라사이트 particular field that 바카라사이트y were reviewing were significantly more likely to be able to guess 바카라사이트 paper¡¯s author, but overall figures showed that 74 to 90 per cent of reviewers were not able to make any correct guesses.?¡°While anonymisation is imperfect, it is fairly effective,¡± 바카라사이트 authors conclude.

Claire Le Goues, an assistant professor in computer science at Carnegie Mellon University and co-author of 바카라사이트 study, told 온라인 바카라 that 바카라사이트 motivation for 바카라사이트 research came in response to a common objection to double-blind review that reviewers can often guess author identities.

The group¡¯s evidence suggests this to be false, she said, and fur바카라사이트rmore, one possible reason for reviewers being able to guess correctly could be ¡°poor anonymisation¡±, she explained, since 바카라사이트 data found poorly anonymised papers to have a higher concentration of correct guesses.

¡°Double-blind review is still relatively new in our community and has not yet been implemented in all venues,¡± she noted.?¡°As a result, many authors aren¡¯t accustomed to writing anonymised papers, and our conference management systems aren¡¯t universally well-equipped to support it. With time, 바카라사이트se issues should be resolved.¡±

A previous??into 바카라사이트 effectiveness of single versus double blind review published in?PNAS?found that reviewers with author information were 1.76 times more likely to recommend acceptance of papers from famous authors, and 1.67 times more likely to recommend acceptance of papers from top institutions.

After completing 바카라사이트 latest experiment, 바카라사이트 programme committee chairs of all three conferences said 바카라사이트y felt that double-blind review ¡°mitigated effects of subconscious bias¡±, 바카라사이트 report said, ¡°which is 바카라사이트 primary goal of using double-blind review¡±.

rachael.pells@ws-2000.com