>>>>> "HL" == Langseth Helge <Helge.Langseth@indman.sintef.no> writes:
HL> I just wondered why the UAI conferences don't use a
HL> double-blind review process (i.e. both the author(s) as well
HL> as the reviewers are anonymous during the reviewing)? Although
HL> it would mean a slight increase in paper work for the
HL> organisation committee, it would also give the appearance of
HL> higher professionalism throughout the community.
HL> (No, this is not about me being rejected and wanting to blame
HL> someone else, or whatever. It is simply the observation that
HL> many other highly competitive arenas, such as the IJCAI, have
HL> introduced double-blind reviews a long time ago...)
Well, if this issue is going to be bruited about on this forum, I'd
like to cast my vote AGAINST the double-blind process. I've seen that
at work in the AI conferences, and it's a monumental pain to deal
with, both as a reviewer (where I have to pretend I don't know people
whose work I recognize perfectly well) and as a submitter, where I
have to try to launder my references. And as a reviewer, I find
ENORMOUS differences in the degree to which submitters comply with the
anonymizing instructions.
Personally, I will be delighted to keep an appearance of greater
amateurism in UAI. And I don't think we need to comply with the
practices of any organization that would site its conference in
Detroit :-)
R
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2001 - 11:21:56 PST