ICSE’18 Double Blind Review Process
There are many reasons for this decision, not least the considerable number of requests from the community. For those who are interested in motivations for double blind reviewing, a very well argued, referenced and evidenced article in favour of double blind review processes for Software Engineering conferences can be found in the blog post by Claire Le Goues: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~clegoues/double-blind.html. And here is a list of double-blind resources from Robert Feldt: http://www.robertfeldt.net/advice/double_blind_reviewing/. And a more formal study of the subject by Moritz Beller and Alberto Bacchelli: https://peerj.com/preprints/1757/
How to prepare your paper for double-blind reviewing?
In order to comply, you do not have to make your identity undiscoverable; the double-blind aspect of the review process is not an adversarial identity discovery process. Essentially, the guiding principle should be to maximize the number of people who could plausibly be authors, subject to the constraint that no change is made to any technical details of the work. Therefore, you should ensure that the reviewers are able to read and review your paper without having to know who any of the authors are. Specifically, this involves at least the following three points:
Omitting all authors’ names from the title page.
Referring to your own work in the third person. You should not change the names of your own tools, approaches or systems, since this would clearly compromise the review process. It breaks the constraint that “no change is made to any technical details of the work”. However, you should always refer to the authorship/provenance of tools, approaches or systems in the third person, so that it is credible that another author could have written your paper.
Not relying on supplementary material (your web site, github repository, youTube channel) in the paper or on the rebuttal submitted during the clarification period. Supplementary information might result in revealing author identities.
Here is some excellent advice on anonymization from ACM: https://icer.hosting.acm.org/icer-2017/additional-advice-on-anonymization/
What about additional information to support repeatability or verifiability of the reported results?
ICSE’18 puts a strong emphasis on creation of quality artifacts and repeatability and verifiability of experiences reported in the papers. An artifact evaluation committee is put in place to review artifacts accompanying all accepted papers, without the need to conceal identity of the authors.
Last modified: May 25, 2017